Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, as agreed by the House last week, from today Oral Questions will no longer have speakers’ lists. As it is over 18 months since we conducted Questions without a list, the arrangements may be unfamiliar to newer Members of your Lordships’ House. There are also new arrangements for the calling of those Members who are eligible to participate remotely in the work of the House. The Leader of the House will now outline briefly how Question Time will operate.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I thank the Lord Speaker. As he rightly said, from today Oral Questions will no longer have a speakers’ list. I will briefly set out on behalf of the usual channels how Question Time will work.
With no lists there will be no agreed speaking order, so supplementary questions will rotate around the parties and groups in the Chamber. Those noble Lords who are permitted to take part virtually may do so in Questions provided that they give notice. Like Members in the Chamber, they are not guaranteed a chance to speak; whether they are invited to do so will be agreed in advance with their parties and groups. During Questions, at an appropriate point I will indicate that the House will hear virtually from a Peer belonging to the party or group whose turn it is.
As noble Lords observed in last week’s debate, the spontaneity of Question Time plays an important part in the House holding Ministers to account. However, some Peers have said that they did not feel as comfortable joining in with Questions. Therefore, as the Senior Deputy Speaker observed, it will be incumbent on all Members to respect the House’s tradition of self-regulation, mutual respect and courtesy. As part of that tradition, it is important that during Question Time the House hears a range of views and from as many Members as possible in the time allowed. Rather than return to the previous seven minutes for each Question, we are now allowing 10 minutes. That should mean that at least 10 supplementary questions can be asked and answered, which I hope will ensure that the House can hear from Members on all sides of any issue.
As noble Lords are aware, the Companion sets out that Ministers’ initial replies should be brief and no more than 75 words and that subsequent replies should also be concise. The Companion also states:
“Supplementary questions should be short and confined to not more than two points.”
It goes on to say that supplementaries should be
“confined to the subject of the original question, and ministers should not answer irrelevant questions. The essential purpose of supplementaries is to elicit information, and they should not incorporate statements of opinion. They should not be read.”
In brief, that means that all supplementaries should take about 30 seconds and ministerial replies should be correspondingly short. I hope that noble Lords will observe these courtesies to ensure that Question Time works for the whole House.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I wonder whether we can ask a question. Why can we not ask a question?

Hate Crimes: Misogyny
 - Question

Baroness Donaghy: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to make misogyny a hate crime.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls. We have asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of hate crime legislation, including whether additional protective characteristics such as sex and gender should be included. The Law Commission is due to publish its recommendations imminently and it is important that we hear what the commission proposes before deciding on a position on this matter.

Baroness Donaghy: I am still haunted by the thought of the last few hours of Sarah Everard—how her life changed in an instant and how terrified she must have been. It could have been any young woman, because the murdering misogynist who is now serving time had prepared to pick any young woman. There are online groups that objectify and dehumanise women and girls and they radicalise young men, who go on to commit acts of aggression designed to intimidate, humiliate and control women. When will the Minister act on making misogyny a hate crime to counteract the widespread misogynist culture in the police and elsewhere and the shameful drop in rape convictions?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, what the noble Baroness has outlined goes far beyond misogyny, although I totally appreciate her question, in that quite often it starts with misogyny. On rape convictions, which I heard her mention right at the end, she will know that a rape review has been carried out, the intention of which is to improve the response right through the criminal justice system.

Baroness Hussein-Ece: My Lords, we were all terribly shocked as we heard about the appalling murder of Sarah Everard and there has been a greater emphasis and scrutiny on the embedded epidemic of violence against women and girls and the misogyny that goes alongside it. Does the Minister agree with Mark Hamilton, the Deputy Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, along with growing numbers of other senior police officers, who said:
“I think this is a welcome addition to how we respond to crime … in this area … it’s a good way of understanding offender behaviour and preventing things escalating from the more minor offences”—
as we saw with Wayne Couzens—
“up to sexually motivated crime and murder”?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: I would not describe Sarah Everard’s killer’s misdemeanours as minor, but I know exactly where the noble Baroness is coming from, which is the trajectory from which these things start, and I do not disagree with her on that. I am very happy with what the Government have done for the past few years: £100 million towards tackling violence against women and girls; stalking protection orders; allowing new offences to tackle forced marriage and revenge porn; and, of course, passing the landmark Domestic Abuse Act.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, is it not wise to await the outcome of the review, because there is a danger in having a proliferation of crimes on the statute book?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: It certainly is and I think that I have articulated to the House that that is what we intend to do.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that, although we welcome the Law Commission’s review, in any consultation prior to a Bill, it is profoundly important that the terminology used is defined as part of the consultation? We are seeing too many consultations coming forward without clear definitions, which is entirely confusing for the public to respond to.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: I agree with the noble Baroness that terminology is important—and terminology changes, so it is important to keep up to date with it.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, on 15 November, the Minister said, in response to an amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, that she would ask police forces to record and identify any crimes of violence against the person where the victim perceives it to be motivated by hostility based on their sex. If she has not already done this, when will she do it? Does she accept that, whatever policy is adopted following the Law Commission’s report, women should be able to expect the same approach across all police forces?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: I agree with the noble Baroness that we need consistency across police forces. I know that we are working with police forces across the country to assist in the endeavour that I outlined to my noble friend Lady Newlove.

Baroness Boycott: My Lords, in some recent terrorist crimes in America, the perpetrators have been found to be members of incels—involuntary celibate—groups. Do the Government monitor membership of these groups in the UK or does that wait until the time of the review?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: Without going into the details, monitoring of some of the threats that  we face goes on in the UK. Noble Lords will have seen in the press some examples of where that has led to more violent crime.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, we saw with the killer of Sarah Everard that he was part of the police and was protected by a quite toxic culture within the police. Does the Minister agree that if we had misogyny as a crime, the police themselves might improve on their behaviour?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: It was clear from the murder of Sarah Everard and the ensuing inquiry that we need to look into an awful lot of areas: the culture, vetting and other elements of what might have led to what happened. It probably goes beyond misogyny.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, when the Minister responded to my noble friend, she said that she was waiting for the outcome of the Law Commission’s review and its recommendations. Does she agree that the Government need to do more than just respond? They need to proactively act. She mentioned the various other measures that the Government have taken, but here is a golden opportunity to act. What legislation are the Government looking at to move the agenda forward to recognise the recommendations of the Law Commission and the rape review?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: I agree with the noble Lord that it is not just about looking at the recommendations, but about seeing how we can put them into legislation and how they become part of our efforts to fight hate crime in whatever form it exists.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, first, even before we decide whether we should bring in hate crime for misogyny—hatred of women—could the Government clarify that they understand what women are and untangle the definition of women from the confusion around gender? Secondly, is there a danger that, in talking about an epidemic of misogyny, we might frighten young women into thinking that all young men hate them?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: We need to strike a balance. On defining what women are, I do not think that the time that I am allotted today is long enough—the noble Baroness is tempting me, but I shall not be drawn into that. However, I think that the language that we use should be very clear so that everyone knows what we are talking about. Balance is incredibly important here as well, because we do not want a generation of terrified women.

Baroness Blower: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what the National Education Union calls everyday sexism should never go unchallenged in any education setting? It is quite clear that sexism at any level can lead to misogyny among men and boys later.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: It is incumbent on us all, whether we are parents, teachers or somebody else with influence on children’s lives, to teach them the value of respect towards each other and towards the opposite sex.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that, before making misogyny a hate crime, it would be wise to look more widely at the various offences that already exist and to add this if it is appropriate, or possibly to widen some other offence to include it. There is a grave danger, as has been said, of making too many offences.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right, and we look forward to the Law Commission’s recommendations in this area.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, building on the response that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lady Blower, could she say what actions her colleagues in the Department for Education have taken following the Everyone’s Invited website and the emergence of very powerful evidence of the kind of thing that my noble friend was talking about?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: I am not particularly equipped to talk about Everyone’s Invited, but I will go back to the point that was made, which the noble Baroness is following up on, which is that respect for other people, whether of the same or opposite sex, is incredibly important in a civilised society, and we all need to lead by example.

Gambling: Children and Young People
 - Question

Lord Foster of Bath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the research by Dr Raffaello Rossi and Professor Agnes Nairn What are the odds? The appeal of gambling adverts to children and young persons on Twitter, published in October.

Lord Foster of Bath: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I draw attention to my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, this research is a useful contribution to the evidence base and will be considered carefully in our ongoing review of the Gambling Act, which is taking a close look at the impacts of advertising wherever it appears. Gambling adverts must already not be targeted at children or appeal particularly to them. The committees for advertising practice will soon publish more on their plans to tighten the rules in this area.

Lord Foster of Bath: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will know that the research indicates how easily children can be influenced by gambling advertisements even when they are not targeted at children; indeed, under-age gambling is  illegal, yet a third do it and over 60,000 are now classed as problem gamblers. Does the Minister agree that, in developing new gambling legislation, we should do what we already do for alcohol, drugs and smoking, and adopt a public health approach, prioritising prevention of harm in the first place?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The noble Lord is right that a public health approach involves prevention as well as treatment. There is a wide range of provisions in the advertising codes designed to protect children, as well as vulnerable adults, from harm. The Committee of Advertising Practice has consulted on further strengthening the rules on appealing to children. We expect an announcement by the end of the year.

Lord Watts: This is a very important issue. Does the Minister agree that the Lords committee that looked at the reform of gambling struck the right balance between protecting the vulnerable and allowing people to gamble if they wish to do so?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Certainly, I had the pleasure of serving on that committee before I joined Her Majesty’s Government. I thank noble Lords who also served on that committee. That work and much else, including the research that we are discussing today, will be taken into account as part of our review of the Gambling Act.

Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of Peers for Gambling Reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has already mentioned, 60,000-plus young people are diagnosed as suffering from gambling-related harm in this country. What consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to ensuring, perhaps under the online harms Bill, that social media companies will provide an opt-in age-verification tool so that we can provide additional protections for our young people to protect them from these adverts?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I assure the right reverend Prelate that the Gambling Act review is taking a close look at the rules regarding advertising on social media. We want full use to be made of all the scope that technology offers when it comes to targeting adverts appropriately.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, as chairman of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme board, I ask my noble friend: will he look carefully at our proposals for an online verification proof of age scheme to ensure that underage children are not accessing gambling on the internet?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: As I have said, there are already strict rules on the targeting of adverts relating to children but, as part of the Gambling Act review, we will certainly look at the evidence that my noble friend cites.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, it is of course right to shield children from adverts promoting gambling but, as we have heard in this House on a number of occasions, that requires the age stated by the individual for access to be accurate in the first place. As social media companies themselves acknowledge that the systems and safeguards may not work as well as they should, can the Minister confirm that the minimum standards required will be incorporated into the upcoming online harms Bill? Will Ofcom be responsible for ensuring that these standards will protect children?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, I am conscious that the online safety Bill is in pre-legislative scrutiny in your Lordships’ House, and a Joint Committee of both Houses will be looking at this important area, as will the Gambling Act review.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, wishes to speak virtually. I think this is a convenient point for me to call him.

Lord Jones of Cheltenham: My Lords, the University of Bristol research shows that gambling adverts are much more attractive to the 16-to-24 age group than to adults, so will the Government expand the definition of “young persons” in the advertising codes from 16 to 17 to 16 to 24?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, the Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising requires paid-for social media adverts to be targeted only at people aged 25 and above and YouTube content produced by an operator’s own YouTube channels must be restricted to accounts verified as being 18 and above. However, all this will be looked at as part of the Gambling Act review.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, Twitter says it would never knowingly market to minors, yet our experience and the report make it clear that that just does not work. Some people want to see these adverts, but I come back to the question of opt-ins and ask the Minister if he will commit to an opt-in protocol for advertising for gambling.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My noble friend tempts me to pre-empt the work of the Gambling Act review, which is ongoing. It is certainly looking at issues such as that.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, would the Minister consider advising football clubs not to have betting companies on their shirts but instead to follow the good example of Heart of Midlothian Football Club, which for six years had Save the Children on its shirts and now has the motor neurone disease charity MND Scotland, funded by Dell Technologies? Is that not the way forward?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: We are looking broadly at the issues of advertising and marketing, including in relation to sports clubs, and have called for evidence on these as part of the review.

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate: My Lords, as a former Minister for Gambling I have always been very concerned about not only the effects on children of the advertising that we see now on social media but the whole effect of the incredible rise in advertising on our normal media—that is, on television and radio. Can we please have a comment from the Government as to whether we think this has gone too far, as I do, and whether they have any ideas for the future as to how we might restrain those advertisers?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Operators must advertise responsibly, and we are committed to tackling aggressive practices. We have called for evidence on advertising and sponsorship as part of our review. The Public Health England evidence review, which we discussed some weeks ago, did not find evidence that exposure to advertising and marketing was a risk factor for harmful gambling, but we continue to keep this issue under review as we review the Gambling Act.

Newport Wafer Fab
 - Question

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the strategic importance to the United Kingdom of Newport Wafer Fab prior to its takeover by a Chinese-owned company.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, we welcome trade and investment where it supports UK growth and jobs and meets our legal and regulatory requirements while not compromising national security. Where we believe there are concerns, we raise them, and where we need to intervene, we will. As the Prime Minister said at the Liaison Committee in July 2021, the National Security Adviser is reviewing this takeover and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment until his review has concluded.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I thank the Minister for that reply, and I understand that he cannot say a great deal more about the review. Nevertheless, can he say something about the clarity of the Chinese Communist Party’s position in comparison with that of the UK, in that it has a clear strategy of undermining resilience and security; promoting dependency; acquiring intellectual property and data; and destroying competitiveness through slave labour in everything from green energy through to surveillance equipment made in places like Xinjiang, which the Foreign Secretary has called a slave state practising genocide? In letting it acquire the UK’s largest-selling silicon chip factory, what account has been taken of these things; the National Security and Investment Act, which will come into effect in January; the integrated review; and the Competition and Mergers Authority’s position?

Lord Callanan: I totally share the noble Lord’s concerns about the actions of the Chinese Communist Party in Xinjiang, Tibet and various other areas where they commit appalling human rights abuses. However, as he will be aware, I cannot comment further on this particular takeover. The National Security Adviser is reviewing it and he will do so on national security grounds.

Lord Robathan: On Chinese takeovers, does my noble friend share the concerns of a great many of us regarding the way that the Chinese are extending their influence—buying their influence—and taking over the Commonwealth, be it in Barbados, Sri Lanka or sub-Saharan Africa? There have been newspaper reports about this. It is a deliberate thing. They are trying to supplant British or western influence and plant their influence in the Commonwealth and elsewhere.

Lord Callanan: I share the concerns of my noble friend. This Question is getting more into foreign affairs than it is into business affairs, but I understand what he is saying. I have seen the reports and I share his concern.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I am disappointed by the response from the Minister. The Chinese have made a huge effort to gain intellectual property over a number of years. I had to go and warn them about this way back at the end of the 90s—they paid no attention then and they are doing it now, more and more. Here is a company with a large chunk of intellectual property, working in the area of chips—something the Chinese are not good at because the Americans have now stopped giving them to them, as they were in the past—and it seems as though we are not really focusing on this. Do we have a real strategy for constraining China’s aims in this area? It is extremely worrying.

Lord Callanan: Nexperia is not new to this particular company; it already owned 15% of it before the latest takeover. As I said, I cannot comment any further on that particular transaction, but we will look carefully at all the facts of the case. Our powers are being strengthened with the National Security and Investment Act coming into force on 4 January next year. We have retrospective powers under that Act and we will not hesitate to act if we need to.

Lord Fox: My Lords, hardly a week goes by without the semiconductor shortage impacting some of our businesses in this country. It is not just about security; it is about manufacturing. Meanwhile, there is an investigation into Newport Wafer Fab and a separate one going on into Arm. Would it not make more sense if there was a holistic view of the semiconductor business in this country and a task force put together, so that we can secure indigenous supplies of these absolutely vital components?

Lord Callanan: The noble Lord is of course aware that we have announced action in both of those cases: both the instances he mentioned are currently being reviewed. As I said, if we need to take action, we will. On his broader question about semiconductors,  we already offer a lot of support to industry through the research councils and the catapults and will continue to do so. It is an area that the Government are acutely aware of.

Lord Stirrup: My Lords, this is part of much wider picture, of course. Can the Minister assure the House that, in their forthcoming national resilience strategy, the Government will deal with such industrial issues in a sufficiently agile way that will be able to cope with a rapidly evolving corporate and technological landscape?

Lord Callanan: The noble and gallant Lord makes a good point, which is why we have strengthened our powers under the National Security and Investment Act, recently passed in this House. We look forward to implementing that legislation on 4 January. It will require notifications in 17 key areas of the economy. On top of that, the Secretary of State has additional call-in powers.

Lord Flight: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a disaster if the last remaining large semi-fab business fell permanently into the hands of the Chinese?

Lord Callanan: As I said in response to an earlier question, Nexperia, the company concerned, already had 15% of this company anyway, and already owns other semiconductor manufacturing plants in the UK. The noble Lord can read its statement as to what it intends to pursue for this business, if he wishes to do so.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, wishes to speak virtually. I think this is a convenient point for me to call him.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Is not the real issue whether Newport Wafer Fab, now employing around 450, would have survived without positive Chinese intervention offering long-term viability? If there is real concern over the survival of UK strategic hi-tech, why not revisit lessons learned in the 1970s from Labour’s NEB, the Conservatives’ NEDC and BTG, and the role that Inmos played in the early development of chips? Without a national initiative, we are conceding all to Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China, and a whinging United States of America, and losing markets.

Lord Callanan: Of course, I cannot comment further on these transactions, as the noble Lord knows, but semiconductors are an important aspect of our industrial future. We have some excellent manufacturing companies in the UK, and we want that to continue.

Lord Sarfraz: My Lords, one of the stated objectives of a project awarded by Innovate UK to Newport Wafer Fab is to provide the UK with a novel sovereign gallium nitride capability. Can my noble friend tell the House how that capability can possibly remain novel, or indeed sovereign, following acquisition by a foreign state-backed entity?

Lord Callanan: The noble Lord tempts me but I cannot go any further than I have already stated. This takeover is being reviewed by the National Security Adviser, and we hope to reach a decision shortly.

Lord Lennie: My Lords, while there can be no doubting the strategic importance to our national security of the part played by Newport Wafer Fab, can the Minister explain why the Government did not intervene in a takeover earlier this year? Could he tell the House what tools the National Security Adviser will have at his disposal that could be applied when the ongoing review is completed?

Lord Callanan: I am not sure to which takeover the noble Lord refers that we did not intervene in—perhaps we should have a separate conversation about that. But it is clear that the Government as a whole have substantial power. As I said, the new NSI Act comes in on 4 January, when it will be commenced, but we have retrospective powers that can go back to November 2020 under that Act.

Lord Crisp: My Lords, I go back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about a strategic overview. How many other firms in the semiconductor supply chain are foreign owned?

Lord Callanan: I do not have that information to hand. It would depend on what firms the noble Lord refers to and what form of suppliers they were. There are many hundreds of companies that serve some of these large manufacturing plants. As I said in response to an earlier question, we understand the importance of semiconductor manufacturers. We support this by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and we support the commercialisation of projects under the Compound Catapult, and we will continue to do so.

Lord German: My Lords, the suspicion locally is that the security part of the review is over, and the hunt is on to buy up shares for Nexperia to create a Chinese-UK company. Given the importance of this to electric vehicle manufacturing, of which there is a massive need at present, and to jobs to be created locally, does the Minister agree that this should be the Government’s prime initiative, and that we need a speedy solution so that investment can take place?

Lord Callanan: I know the concerns locally about the investment. I have spoken to Newport’s MP about this, and she expressed her views on the takeover. As I have said, we have taken all those factors into consideration, particularly that of national security, which the National Security Adviser is currently considering this takeover on, and we will reach a decision on that shortly.

Ministerial Code
 - Question

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish an updated version of the Ministerial Code.

Lord True: My Lords, the Ministerial Code is the responsibility of the Prime Minister of the day. It is customarily updated and issued on their assuming or returning to office, and any amendments to the code are a decision for the Prime Minister.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I recognise that the Prime Minister issued the latest version on almost the same day when he advised Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament so that he could avoid parliamentary scrutiny of his actions for another couple of months. Is not it time now, given the widespread concern about behaviour in public life and the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, for a more measured review, which might well include asking for comments and contributions from the relevant committees of both Houses?

Lord True: My Lords, high standards in public life are of fundamental importance. I respectfully submit, regularly from this Dispatch Box, that we are fortunate in this country in the high standards we have in public life. Of course this Government look carefully at reports and advice given on various aspects. As the noble Lord will know, we are carefully considering a number of recently published reports and will respond in due course.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: Would it be a good idea if Ministers obeyed the law, rather than seeking to overturn it either in judicial review or by a court should they be found to have flaunted it?

Lord True: My Lords, I am not certain what specifically the noble Baroness is referring to. This Government respect the judgment of the courts and that is a principle of our polity, but any Government are entitled to review the existing law and submit to Parliament proposals for changing it.

Lord Young of Cookham: My Lords, has my noble friend read paragraph 9.1 of the Ministerial Code? It says:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
Does he agree that in the last 20 years that paragraph has been widely overlooked? Would he agree that it should either be abolished or enforced—with Ministers who breach it losing their passports?

Lord True: That would be a novel sanction for Ministers; obviously I welcome the proposals made this morning on another matter. I have read that, and I personally take it very seriously. As a Minister in your Lordships’ House, I believe that the first duty is to your Lordships’ House. Like my noble friend, I am advancing in years and I remember the days when news was news and not spin disseminated aforehand. We should all aspire to respect for Parliament.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, if the Prime Minister respects Parliament, he surely has to respect the Ministerial Code. It seems that he has a rather arm’s-length relationship with it at times. Perhaps,  instead of having a review, we should see the code adhered to, which I think would please your Lordships’ House more than seeing it change. When the code is reviewed, we should also look at the foreword from the Prime Minister, because I think perhaps his priorities were wrong when he drafted that, as Brexit is mentioned three times yet integrity is mentioned only once.

Lord True: My Lords, I am sure that events evolve and that what must remain constant is high standards of behaviour. Personally, I am proud to be a Member of my right honourable friend’s Government, and I do not share the view held of him by some on Benches opposite.

Lord Newby: My Lords, the first paragraph of the Ministerial Code requires Ministers to follow the principles of public life, which include integrity, openness, honesty and leadership. Did the Prime Minister exhibit these qualities when he allowed No. 10 to be used for an illegal Christmas party on 18 December last year?

Lord True: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said: standards in public life are important. I believe that the Prime Minister respects those fully. As far as the alleged events the noble Lord refers to, I point him to the statement made by Downing Street: that No. 10 has always followed, and continues to follow, Covid regulations at all times.

Baroness Drake: My Lords, the Prime Minister sets the Ministerial Code and is the ultimate judge of standards of behaviour, but now highly reputable bodies are increasingly calling for reforms. It is the age-old question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Does the Minister agree that, to restore public confidence, the code needs to set stronger standards on how Ministers should use social media and respond to lobbying?

Lord True: My Lords, obviously the use of social media and lobbying are important and relevant matters. As the noble Baroness will know, there are recommendations before the Government and the country on lobbying, for example. My right honourable friend recently wrote to the Speaker supporting action on lobbying in the other place.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, as it is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to update the manual, has he been asked whether he will do this? If not, will my noble friend undertake to ask him?

Lord True: My Lords, the answer to the first question is that I think your Lordships have frequently suggested it. I will draw my right honourable friend’s attention to the remarks of my noble friend.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I recently wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, asking him to investigate a breach of the Ministerial Code by Ministers misquoting the cost of HS2. He said that, under section 1.4, he would have to ask the Prime Minister first. Is there not a conflict between the Prime Minister’s personal and possible political role and that of making a judicial decision on such issues?

Lord True: My Lords, a case was determined this morning relating to the operation of the Ministerial Code, which I am sure your Lordships will wish to study. The independent adviser has confirmed that he is content that the Transport Secretary followed the process required under the Ministerial Code for the declaration of his private interests.

Lord McLoughlin: My Lords, is it not the simple fact that the only person accountable to the British public is actually the Prime Minister, through elections, and all these people who call for some other person to be in charge of the Ministerial Code forget that any such person would be non-electable?

Lord True: My Lords, that seems to be causing some surprise on the other side—perhaps some of them have never actually faced the electorate, as many of us have.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord True: Others can investigate who has stood for election here and who has not. I agree with what my noble friend said. Ultimately, any Prime Minister is accountable in the conduct of his duty to the British people and is always conscious of that high responsibility.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Will the Minister think again? The Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament, and Members of the House of Commons individually are elected by the British people. The Prime Minister should be accountable to Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, by making Statements and by answering Questions—which the Prime Minister never does; he tries to make it leader of the Opposition’s Questions and challenges my right honourable friend Keir Starmer. Will the Minister, however, confirm that a number of organisations, including the Institute for Government, have recommended that the Ministerial Code should be incorporated in statute and that the independent adviser should be given more powers, including to start investigations? Why is this taking so long? Why is something not done about it, so that we have real democracy in this country?

Lord True: My Lords, I have repeatedly answered this question in the House. I know that the noble Lord does not agree with the answer, but the answer is that the Prime Minister’s constitutional role as the sovereign’s principal adviser means that the management of the Executive is wholly separate from the legislature. It is for the Prime Minister to advise the sovereign on the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of the resignation of other Ministers. That is why it is right that the Prime Minister has responsibility for the Ministerial Code, which was underlined in the judgment this morning.

Lord Cormack: Does the Ministerial Code regulate the private and public use of social media, which is a relatively new phenomenon and was not in place when it was first drafted? Is it not better to have strict rules so that diplomacy and tweeting do not become confused?

Lord True: My Lords, I have never tweeted and I am not an assiduous reader of tweets.

Football: Casey Review
 - Private Notice Question

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Asked by Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to The Baroness Casey Review: An independent Review of events surrounding the UEFA Euro 2020 Final “Euro Sunday” at Wembley, published on 3 December 2021.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and I declare an interest as a vice-president of the charity Level Playing Field.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, for her thorough and important review. Her report rightly highlights that responsibility for the reckless and criminal behaviour at the Euro 2020 final lies with a small minority of individuals who sought to undermine the day for the overwhelming majority of fans. The UK has a long and successful record of hosting major international sporting events. The Government will now work with the police and football authorities to consider the report’s recommendations in full.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he not agree with me that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has produced a truly devastating report, which everyone—the Football Association, the police and the Government—have to take seriously? She makes it clear in her report that we shall never know for sure how close we came to a huge disaster involving major loss of life, caused by 6,000 ticketless fans outside the stadium who were ready to storm inside had England won the penalty shootout. Will the Government pay particular attention to recommendation 6.a:
“Particular attention should be made to ensuring those entering through gates provided for wheelchair users and other more vulnerable members of society are not endangered by the reckless actions of others”?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, the noble Baroness’s report is thorough and very significant, and it includes a number of very important recommendations for the football authorities, the police, the Government and many others. We will be looking at them all and making sure that lessons are learned so that the sorts of scenes we saw at the Euro final are not seen again.

Lord Addington: My Lords, would the Minister take on the fact that it was actually a total breakdown of communication and intelligence that allowed this to happen? Will the Government undertake to ensure that all those groups—the FA, the football authorities, the Metropolitan Police, wherever they are in the  country—when we have a game of this magnitude are required to talk to each other, and not at the last minute but before the event takes place?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: There were meetings between the Metropolitan Police, the Government and others in the days running up to the final, but the noble Lord makes an important point about sharing intelligence during incidents such as these. I know that that was something that the noble Baroness looked into and it is one of the things that must be followed up.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, for her excellent report. We would expect nothing else from her but a high standard of product. The Euro 2020 final should have been a cause for pride and celebration, not life-threatening danger and shame. Of course, due to the nature of the disturbances at Wembley, it was not possible for the majority of the ticketless fans to be identified, ejected and, where appropriate, punished. During the recent Committee stage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we discussed whether those engaging in online racist abuse of sportspeople should be subject to banning orders, and we are hopeful that the Government will finally take action on this. Will the Minister now look more widely at what lessons must be learned from Wembley and whether the current banning-order system is enough to stop reckless behaviour at games? Does he agree that the Government should work more closely with the authorities and with clubs to improve the culture surrounding our national game? Without that change in culture, I fear that these instances will occur on other occasions.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The noble Lord is right that what should have been a happy and important day was marred, both by the racist abuse that we saw of some of the England players afterwards and by the disorder that the noble Baroness’s report addresses. In both of those instances, action has been taken to follow up. As noble Lords alluded to, the Government have set out that we will amend legislation to extend the use of football banning orders. However, legislation on its own is not the answer to disorder. That is why we will keep the legislation under review, but we will also be working with the football authorities and others to ensure that the minority of people who spoil days such as 11 July for the majority cannot do so.

Lord Pannick: My Lords, the Minister rightly referred to criminal behaviour. There is a mass of photographic evidence showing unmasked individuals behaving criminally. Can the Minister tell the House how many people have been charged with criminal offences, how many people have been convicted and what sentences have been imposed?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, I do not have those figures. However, as the noble Lord points out, where there is CCTV footage and with the further evidence gathered by the noble Baroness in her   report, it is obviously for the prosecuting authorities—rightly separate from Government—to look at that and take the decisions they feel are appropriate.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the most damaging outcome of the events at Wembley—notwithstanding the success of the Olympic Games in London and the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow and the undoubted soon-to-be success of the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham—is that international sporting bodies will be reluctant to send prestigious events to be held in the United Kingdom?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I am pleased to say that the UK has a very strong track record in staging international sporting events, the vast majority of which go exceedingly well. We thank the noble Baroness for her report, to make sure that we have learned the lessons from this incident and will continue to do so in future.

Lord Watts: My Lords, the football authorities have a long record of mismanagement, both domestically and internationally. Does the Minister believe that we need a regulator in the UK to start to get some control over our football and the way it is run?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: That recommendation was taken up by my honourable friend Tracey Crouch in the fan-led review. The Government have accepted it in principle, but we will come back with our full response to the report and all its recommendations.

Lord Hogan-Howe: My Lords, I support the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because that is something that would reassure the House and the public about how good the investigation has been. There is clear evidence, which we have all seen, and it should be available to the investigation. The problem with this type of event is that the crowd trying to get in often gets too close to the gates, by which time it is very difficult for anyone to intervene. One of the big things for Wembley is to see what can be done to prevent those without tickets getting anywhere near the gates. At that ground—though not at all grounds—it would be physically relatively straightforward. In time, it would be helpful for us to hear more about how architecture and engineering can make sure that this does not happen again.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The noble Lord of course speaks with great authority. The Football Association asked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to undertake this review so that matters such as that can be looked into and, in due course, responded to properly. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to thank all the police and stewards who worked very bravely on the day to ensure that the situation did not escalate further and cause further injury or indeed loss of life.

Lord Cunningham of Felling: My Lords, I am not accusing the Minister, but he seems to be conveying the impression that nothing is known about the circumstances of this. I am sure that is wrong; not  least, how do several thousand people without tickets turn up at a match of such significance not just to the United Kingdom but internationally? It shamed our country and our football. Unless there is a thorough investigation into who organised this—I am quite sure it did not happen by accident—and what their purposes were in doing so, we shall never be able to say in future that it will not happen again.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I hope I am not conveying that impression. The report of the noble Baroness is very thorough and detailed; it was published on Friday and all those who will respond to it—the FA, the police and everybody else—need time to look at it with the detail and attention it deserves. However, the noble Lord is right to point to some of the things the noble Baroness found in her report: a lot of the people gathered there were not there to see the match—they were not even watching it on their mobile phones—but had the intention of causing disorder. It was a small minority of people who were intent on spoiling the day for the vast majority of people around the country and at Wembley who were enjoying it, and it is on them that we must focus our principal attentions.

Lord Laming: My Lords, the noble Baroness produced her remarkably good report very speedily. We should acknowledge that; she did a splendid job. The Football Association has aspirations to host other international competitions very soon. Can the Minister assure the House that everything will be done at the speed set by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to make sure that lessons are learned before we get into the next international competition?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: As ever, we need both speed and thoroughness. The noble Baroness achieved both in her report and it is incumbent on everyone responding to it to do the same. I am pleased to say that the heads of FIFA and UEFA have reassured us that the incident in July should not have an impact on the outcome of any current bidding processes. As I said, the UK has a strong track record of staging international sporting events, and it is a record of which we are rightly proud.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, if that is the case, what reassurance can my noble friend give the House this afternoon that families who take their young children to what should be a joyful sporting event will be safe and will not be exposed to the same dangers as happened on that day?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My noble friend makes an important point. It was families with young children, or people who were there with friends or family with disabilities, who were targeted by some of the people trying to get into the stadium. The noble Baroness’s report looked into some of those instances and came forward with recommendations on how to ensure that minorities intent on doing harm do not mar such important days for others.

Companies (Strategic Report) (Climate-related Financial Disclosure)  Regulations 2021
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 28 October and 1 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I object.

Lord Haskel: Is the noble Lord objecting to agreeing them en bloc?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Yes.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Minister’s Motion to move these Motions en bloc has been objected to.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I exercised the right that all noble Lords have to object to Motions being taken en bloc, not because I object to these two particular Motions being taken en bloc but because I object to the fact that, when the Leader of the House made a business statement earlier today, no other Member of the House was able to ask questions or make any comments. Yet it was a very substantial statement, and some of us wanted to point out that we object to decisions about who should speak virtually and who should speak in the Chamber being taken by a party-political representative—the Leader of the House—rather than by the Speaker. I was not able to make that comment; others wanted to make similar comments. I would like the Deputy Speaker, and anyone else who can, to raise the matter with the Lord Speaker, and I will do so myself. Perhaps the Minister will too. The issue is why there was no opportunity to question the Leader of the House when she made that business statement.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend. This is not directly the subject of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and I do not expect a comprehensive and detailed reply. But I urge him to talk to his ministerial colleagues, particularly to the Leader of the House, and make the point that—as my noble friend has said—a substantial statement was made that nobody could have known about: there is nothing whatever on today’s House of Lords Order of Business to tell us that the Leader of the House would be making a substantial statement. The essence of a sensibly functioning Houses of Parliament is proceedings that are intelligible. How on earth can someone in the Gallery know what is going on when someone gets up  from the Bench, and they have not got the faintest idea who she is—I mean no disrespect to the Leader of the House—and makes an important statement, and the House continues as if nothing has happened? That is an unacceptable state of affairs.
I have, over the years, made a very small advance in this respect, if I may bring it up: there never used to be an announcement of the results of a hereditary Peers by-election. After much consideration of this revolutionary proposal, eventually it went up on the monitor and it appeared on the Order Paper that such an announcement would be made. This is probably the easiest question in the Minister’s long experience on the Front Bench, but will he talk to the Leader, so that, perhaps through the usual channels, we can get some intelligibility introduced into these important matters? That is all I have to say.

Lord Callanan: I thank both noble Lords for their esteemed interest in the Companies (Strategic Report) (Climate-related Financial Disclosure) Regulations 2021. I must have missed their references to this important statutory instrument during their speeches, but I entirely understand the point they are making and, of course, I will convey their views to my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Motion agreed.

Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions  Act 2008 (Amendment to Schedule 3) (England) Order 2021
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the draft Order and Regulations laid  before the House on 28 October and 1 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Motion agreed.

Network and Information Systems (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Motion agreed.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation)  Order 2021
 - Motion to Approve

The Earl of Courtown: Moved by The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Order laid before the House on 2 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

Earl of Courtown: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Motion agreed.

Coronavirus Act 2020 (Early Expiry)  (No. 2) Regulations 2021
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Kamall: Moved by Lord Kamall
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Motion agreed.

Financial Services Act 2021 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) (Consequential Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021
 - Motion to Approve

The Earl of Courtown: Moved by The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.

Earl of Courtown: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Motion agreed.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2021
 - Motion to Approve

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Motion agreed.

Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021
 - Motion to Approve

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Amendment to the Motion

Lord Berkeley: Moved by Lord Berkeley
At end insert, “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations fail to include a requirement for all charging points to be fully interoperable”.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly to my amendment to the Motion. I apologise that it was not put down when the regulations were debated in Grand Committee, so I will be as brief as I can. First, I welcome these regulations. My view is that they do not go far enough, but they are a very good start.
The key in my amendment to the Motion is that there needs to be more said and done to promote interoperability. Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“This instrument makes clear that a charge point should not introduce a new barrier to switching by being designed to lose its smart functionality when its owner changes supplier.”
That is very good, but it does not go far enough. In the debate in Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Rosser made some excellent points about interoperability and the Minister gave some good answers, but my concern is that electric vehicle use will not take off until there is full interoperability of the system, which I shall come  to, and full confidence among users that they will be able to use the electric power supply rather like people use petrol stations now—in other words, they can guarantee that when they go to a supply, they will be able to connect up and get some power.
I have a very small, but I think critical, example of my little village in Cornwall where the parish council has put in two charging points in the car park. This is very important when the nearest petrol station is about 15 miles away. A friend who has an electric car tried to use them but they have been out of order all summer, when everybody goes there. He wrote to the supplier to say that its machines did not work, and the answer was that there was a technical fault. He then discovered from the car park owner—the parish council—that the reason they did not work was that the supplier had not paid the parish council the very small amount of money that it was due to allow the charging points to be placed there. This could be all over the country.
It is a minor detail, but we need to have some comprehensive regulations which cover charging at home, and what is in these excellent regulations, rapid charging, minimum waiting times, sockets on lampposts, facilities for long and short journeys, from wherever you pick them up. The most important thing of all is that one plug and one socket fits all, not like mobile phones at the moment. Will the Minister be able to give some idea about when there will be a comprehensive plan to make electric power for vehicles fully interoperable and fully comprehensive? I am sure she will agree that when that happens it will all take off. I look forward to her comments.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My noble friend will be aware that there are very few charging points across the north of England. There is also still a catastrophic power outage in parts of the north-east of England. Will she reassure the House this afternoon that there are absolutely no plans in the foreseeable future that any public service vehicles, such as buses, ambulances or fire engines, will switch to electric engines any time soon in the north-east of England?

Baroness Randerson: I add to the excellent comments already made that there is an overriding concern among EV owners about whether you are safely going to get to the end of your long journey. You have none of those concerns if you are in a petrol or diesel car; you know that you will be able to refill your car. If you are in an EV, not only do you have the uncertainty as to whether the charge point will fit or will work, you also have to stand out in the rain in the corner of a motorway services feeling insecure.
Until the Government take the leadership that we need on this issue, we will not solve these problems. The legislation before us today is fine as far as it goes, but it is about squeezing a little bit more out of the grid, which is already overstretched. We need greater leadership from the Government.

Baroness Deech: My Lords—My Lords, I agree with previous speakers. I took a short journey last week in my electric car to a hotel where there were  six charging points. Three of them were for Tesla only—that is not me—and of the other three, one was occupied, one did not work and the other I could not make work. I will not detain your Lordships’ too long by saying that I nearly had a heart attack trying to get home worrying what was going to happen.
I should also add that in a new multi-storey car park in Botley, west Oxford, where I live, there are 14 charging points. Every single one is out of order—every single one. The building is operated by Savills, but I have had no response from it other than saying that it does not have a legal obligation to turn on these points. Not only that, but if you were able to make them work, you would have to be a member of a particular company that supplies the electricity and would need to have working wi-fi. This will not do. We do not want competition—we want uniformity and contactless payment.

Lord Rosser: We had a discussion on interoperability when we debated these regulations last Tuesday in Grand Committee. There were questions asked; the Government were asked to say in their response whether the wording in the Explanatory Memorandum—to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley has referred—in paragraph 7.6 constitutes in reality a requirement for all charging points to be interoperable. I expressed the personal view that it did not, but I asked for clarification on that point.
Later in the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government say that they have
“chosen not to mandate device-level requirements”
relating to demand-side response interoperability
“at this time … because the smart charging market remains nascent, and because delivering interoperability would require broader powers than those set out in”
the Automated and Electric Vehicle Act 2018. That comment was despite the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The ability of consumers to freely switch energy supplier is a fundamental principle in the energy market”,
which makes it rather surprising that we seem to have this delay over interoperability.
The Government, in the Explanatory Memorandum, also went to say that they
“intend instead to consider how best to deliver interoperability as part of a second phase of legislation, by looking at placing wider requirements on the entities … which could deliver DSR through charge points. Government aims to consult on this second phase of policy measures in 2022.”
I suggested that that was a somewhat vague timescale that contained no target date for actually legislating. I asked the Government whether they could be more specific in their response. The noble Baroness the Minister was good enough to say—which I appreciated—that she could not give specific answers to these questions when we were debating this last Tuesday and that she would write to answer all questions that had been asked. Irrespective of what the Minister intends to say in response now, I hope that we shall still be getting that written reply to questions that were not responded to last Tuesday.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for  the opportunity to outline the Government’s position on interoperability. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the letter is coming his way; it will pick up all the points raised in in that debate and any raised from today’s debate—of course, today, I am focusing on interoperability, but I note comments made by other noble Lords on wider EV infrastructure. They will be aware that the EV infrastructure strategy will be published soon, which will set out the vision and action plan for charging infrastructure rollout, but I am aware that some more specific comments have been made.
There are many different types and forms of EV charge point interoperability, relating to both public and private charge points. Some forms of interoperability are already delivered by the market. For example, most private charge points sold in Great Britain are compatible with all EVs. Work is also under way within government to consider whether further action on interoperability is needed to deliver the best outcomes for consumers.
I turn first to private charge points. These regulations will embed further interoperability by mandating electricity supplier interoperability in law for the first time. This new requirement will ensure that consumers will retain the smart functionality of their charge point. The Government also considered including requirements for charge point operator interoperability in the regulations. This would have required all charge points to be compatible with any operator, but the Government’s view is that this type of interoperability would not be appropriate for such a nascent market. It would not materially affect the consumer experience and would be an unnecessary burden on the industry. Therefore, we are not bringing forward such requirements.
Further work is under way to consider other types of interoperability in the smart energy system, including for private EV charge points. This could include requirements to allow consumers to switch the provider of specific smart charging services. That is another type of interoperability, very similar to that enjoyed, for example, by smartphone users, who can change their mobile network provider without needing to purchase a new device. Crucially, consumers would be able to seek out new deals or better services, but that would not detriment the industry’s ability to innovate and develop new products and services. These are the sorts of things that the Secretary of State for Business aims to consult on in 2022. I have no more specific date today, but, as I said, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Turning to public charge points, in 2017 we mandated that rapid charge points must have CCS connectors to ensure interoperable charging. There are now only two EV models available to buy in the UK with CHAdeMO sockets, and one of those providers has indicated that future models will provide CCS—96% of rapid chargers come with both connectors.
In addition, in February 2021 we consulted on proposals to ensure that UK charging networks offer seamless consumer experience, and considered a range of different types of interoperability. This includes proposals on payment interoperability, which would mandate a minimum payment method, such as contactless, and explores whether we should intervene to ensure  interoperable payment apps. The government response to that consultation on public charge points will be published shortly, with regulations being laid next year.
EV charge point interoperability is a critical policy area for this Government. As I hope to have portrayed today, there is not just one type of interoperability; there are several, some of which the Government are very willing to get involved in; others we will leave to the market. We are committed in our smart charging government response to explore those forms of interoperability, and then we will lay regulations.

Lord Berkeley: I am very grateful to the Minister for that answer and for the comments of other noble Lords: the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Rosser. Of course, I am aware that there are many different types of interoperability, but I recall, about 20 years ago, when I—probably like other noble Lords—was travelling around Europe on business, you had to have a bag of about 20 different plugs to plug in your phone, charge it and make the phone work. This will not work unless there is some reaction and force from consumers to have something that is simple and easy-to-use. I wish it well, and I look forward to what the Minister will send to us in the next few months but, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [HL]
 - Third Reading

Viscount Younger of Leckie: Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Bill be now read a third time.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, before we progress with Third Reading of this Bill, I will make a short statement about our engagement with the devolved Administrations. Officials have worked closely and collaboratively with the devolved Administrations throughout the passage of this Bill. The Northern Ireland Executive have passed a legislative consent Motion on this Bill. The Welsh Senedd is in the process of considering a Motion, and the Scottish Government are considering bringing a Motion forward. I am grateful for their continued engagement on this issue.
Motion agreed.

Motion

Viscount Younger of Leckie: Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Bill do now pass.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to lead the Bill through this House. Before the Bill moves for consideration in the other place, I want to take a brief moment to reflect on the Bill and its passage through this House.
This is important legislation that consolidates and strengthens the legal framework for pensions across all the main public services: that is, the NHS, the judiciary, the police, firefighters, the Armed Forces, teachers, local government and the Civil Service. This Bill ensures that those who deliver our valued public services continue to receive guaranteed benefits in retirement that are among the best available on a fair and equal basis. It is also vital in addressing the resourcing challenges facing the judiciary, recognising the unique constitutional role of judges.
It has been clear from the informed and considered contributions made throughout the Bill’s passage that we are agreed on the principles of fairness and equal treatment for public servants. I convey my gratitude to all noble Lords for their contributions to our well-informed debates, which have helped to ensure that we achieve this aim. The Government listened carefully to your Lordships’ arguments and concerns as the Bill progressed and made a significant number of technical amendments on Report—123 in total—which I think noble Lords will agree have strengthened the Bill.
In particular, we listened to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, during Grand Committee, regarding the importance of ensuring pension scheme members were provided with remedial voluntary contribution arrangements. I thank the noble Lord in supporting the Government to identify and address this important issue.
I would like to extend my thanks to all those who have engaged on the Floor of the House and in the meetings that we have had outside. In particular, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Davies of Brixton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for their close engagement on the complex area that is public service pensions. I hope that the note sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, earlier today provides some reassurance on her important points raised on Report regarding eligibility criteria for voluntary contributions.
In addition, I thank a number of your Lordships who made impassioned contributions to our consideration of the judicial mandatory retirement age, including the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton, Lord Woolf, Lord Thomas, Lord Hope and Lord Brown, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay.
I also thank the Bill team, ably lead by Fraser Johnston, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, officials across Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, all government departments with responsibilities for public service pension schemes, and the devolved Administrations for their extensive support throughout passage of the Bill.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Scott for her help as the Bill went through the House. There is a lot of technical detail in the Bill, with complex legal consequences, and the team’s guidance and expertise has been exemplary. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in expressing thanks for the support that the whole team has provided, including the updates, letters and briefings that noble Lords have received. On that note, I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Brixton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courtesy and helpfulness during the passage of the Bill. It was very much a learning process for me as the first Bill to which I had given such a close and involved consideration. I learned lessons, one of which is to check which group a particular amendment is in and get it right. I thank the Minister, as well as the officials. We seem to be saying farewell, but I suspect that it is au revoir and that, in one way or another, we will be returning to these issues.

Baroness Janke: My Lords, I too thank the Minister; I thank him for the letter I received today, which answered the question that he referred to, as well as for his leadership and his open and engaging approach. He has ensured that we have had opportunities to be fully briefed on the Bill. As others have said, it is a very complex Bill, wide-ranging in scope, and has implications for millions of citizens, particularly public sector workers.
I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, I am sure that we have all learned a great deal from the Bill. I certainly know a lot more about public sector pensions than I did when we started out. I express my appreciation to the Bill team, for its expert help and support and, not least, its patience in explaining some of these complexities.
Noble Lords across the House have made valuable contributions; certainly, the judicial offices part of the Bill saw a very high-quality debate, with issues arising that apply not just to judicial offices but across the board, to public services and the holding of high office. Again, I thank colleagues for their co-operation. I believe that we have worked hard and well on this Bill.
Lastly, I put on record my thanks to Sarah Pughe in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, for her work on the Bill, and for the professional support that she has given me throughout its passage.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, has said. I thank the Minister and his team for their comprehensive support to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and myself. It was a very complicated Bill and I know that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, I needed some guidance through it. This is important legislation for public service pensions. It will guarantee pensions for public servants—something which, of course, we all agree with. We are aware that there may well be further amendments in the other place as well as further legislation given that there are ongoing cases currently in court. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton is relatively new to the House and, I have to say, he has started extremely well. It is not often, when taking part in your first Bill, that you manage to influence government policy in the way that he has; my noble friend deserves congratulations.
I was present throughout all the debates and, when we debated the mandatory retirement age, I felt there was a sense of relief because it was an easily understood issue. Many noble and noble and learned Lords took  part in that debate with a level of passion not forthcoming in the other more technical parts of the debate. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for his support as the Bill transitioned through the House.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I thank all noble Lords who have just spoken for their kind remarks; I am pleased that we have got to this stage.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
 - Report

Clause 1: Animal Sentience Committee

Amendment 1

Lord Trees: Moved by Lord Trees
1: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—“(1A) The function of the Committee is to determine whether, in relation to the process of the formulation and implementation of policy subsequent to the Committee’s establishment, it is satisfied the Government is having all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”Member’s explanatory statementThis makes clear that the Committee’s remit relates to the process of the formulation and implementation of policy but only that which has been formulated and implemented after the Committee's formation.

Lord Trees: My Lords, I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare and a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, so it will come as no surprise to noble Lords that I broadly support the Bill. Moreover, in 2018 I tabled an amendment to the withdrawal Bill to bring Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty into UK statute. That was rejected by the Government at the time, but I suspect that if Her Majesty’s Government look in the mirror of history, they may feel that they should have accepted that amendment then; it would have addressed the issue of sentience at that time and given us a foundation to build on and make changes if so wished.
Article 13 had considerable scope for unintended consequences, and this Bill, which is Article 13 with bells on, has considerably more—hence the number of amendments, particularly from the Government Benches. The Bill goes considerably further than Article 13: for example, it sets up an animal sentience committee; it covers all government policy; it has no exceptions for cultural, historical or religious practices; it includes certain invertebrates; and it specifically allows for the retrospective consideration of government policy formulation. The considerable widening of the scope of Article 13, yet at the same time the lack of detail in many places, has led to the large number of amendments that we see today.
Amendment 1 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to whom I am grateful for their support, makes two   key points. Clause 1(1) of the Bill establishes an animal sentience committee. Our amendment seeks to define, at the start of the Bill, two key aspects of that committee’s remit. The first aspect, which seeks to make explicit what I understand is Her Majesty’s Government’s intention, would introduce the word “process” with regard to the committee’s function in scrutinising the formulation and implementation of policy. It would make it very clear that the ASC did not have a function with regard to commenting on policy per se but, rather, on the degree to which the Government had taken animal welfare into account in developing that policy.
I suggest that that is a critical aspect of the Bill. For example, one of the briefings that we received says that the Bill entrusts responsibility to the animal sentience committee for considering the impact of its policies on animals as sentient beings. But it does not; it requires the ASC to consider whether the Government have considered the impact on animal welfare of the policies that they are developing. I submit that this is not mere semantics but a substantive difference, which introducing the word “process” in respect of the function of the committee makes clear. I note that other recent amendments—for example, Amendment 2 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland, and Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, have also included the word “process” with regard to the function of the committee and its scrutiny of the formulation and implementation of policy.
The other key point in Amendment 1, which is a feature of other amendments in this group—I think that is largely why it has been put there—is to exclude retrospective examination of policy formulation and implementation. It is exceptional that any legislation allows retrospective evaluation of actions, and I find it difficult to understand the justification of that. The ASC will exist alongside the current Animal Welfare Committee, which is advisory, and, if some historic legislation appears no longer fit for purpose or inadequate in any way, the AWC is perfectly placed to point this out and to make suggestions for either new legislation or the revision of existing legislation. That is totally within its remit. However, I would be interested to hear from the Minister of the justification for these retrospective powers, which—to judge from the number of amendments on this issue—a number of noble Lords find problematic. I beg to move.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, Amendments 12, 14 and 16 in this group are in my name. However, I will first support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, which seems to be both sensible and necessary to be made to the Bill if we are to have a committee in this form at all. I also support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.
I have one query about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, which I will come to in relation to my Amendment 16. The first two, Amendments 12 and 14, underline the requirement in those amendments for the committee to deal with only future policy and when it is being formulated. Surely the value of this committee if it is to have any real  effect is to perform a role not already covered by other committees, to draw attention to failures of consideration if it finds them when policy is being formulated or has just been formulated and before implementation, so that the defects can if necessary and possible be remedied before the policy is enacted.
In the Bill at present there is no limit as to how far back the committee can go. The draft terms of reference, which the Minister kindly sent us, express a hope—no more—that it will concentrate on more recent policies, but there is nothing to stop the committee going back as far as it chooses. Ministers come and go—so do civil servants. An examination of whether a past Secretary of State gave all due regard to the effect of a policy on animal welfare, possibly long enacted, will be difficult if not impossible in many cases. The additional cost of this committee, according to the terms of reference, is to be no more than half a million pounds from Defra’s budget. However, there is no calculation of how much time will be needed to be spent by other departments trying to answer the inevitable investigation into how decisions were made. It must take time from the work of those departments in each case, and of course be at public expense too. This committee surely cannot be intended to be a quasi post-legislative scrutiny committee, yet the Bill is without any limit as to its remit.
My Amendment 16 removes implementation from the committee’s remit. After Committee I looked forward to seeing the draft terms of reference because, as it stands, the purpose, remit, scope and any limits on the powers of the committee are not clear in the Bill. I hoped they would be remedied, at the very least, in guidance. Sadly, they are not. Instead, in a number of respects, the Bill and the terms of the reference are in direct conflict.
Amendment 16 removes policy that has been implemented from the committee’s remit. In this, it differs from the way in which Amendment 1 from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, is drafted. In giving all due regard to the ways in which a policy might adversely affect animal welfare, a Minister will have to balance those considerations against the effect of the policy on many other considerations. These may be transport needs, housing needs or public health needs, perhaps. In other words, is the rail link necessary despite the bats that are on the route?
Those other considerations cannot sensibly be part of this committee’s remit. It would be unlikely to have the material unless it is to rerun the Minister’s policy-making role in all its aspects, and it would almost inevitably lack the expertise to do so. The terms of reference support my view that implementation should not concern this committee, unlike Clause 2(1). The terms of reference say that the committee is not expected to consider individual operational decisions nor to consider matters of fiscal policy. Individual operational decisions are then defined as decisions for which no bespoke ministerial direction is sought or required. For example, a policy that sets up a licensing scheme would constitute policy which the committee could consider, but the granting of an individual licence under the scheme and the effects of doing so would not fall within that remit.
In Clause 2(2), the question that the committee has to answer in its report speaks of having regard to the ways in which the policy
“might have an adverse effect”
on animal welfare—not, I note, “has had” an adverse effect. Policy which has been put into effect—in other words, implemented—needs to be outside the remit. As it stands, there is confusion both within Clause 2 and between the Bill and the terms of reference.
I am sorry to say it, but the Bill is a dog’s breakfast and that has not been improved by these terms of reference. I am sorry that the Opposition, on whose Benches I sit, have not seen fit to raise the objections to what are, one would have thought, fundamental defects in legislation. If the Bill is not clarified and amended to indicate its limits and its purpose, then a great deal of public money and public time is going to be wasted on it. I still marvel at how a Government who were elected in part on a promise to reduce bureaucracy, especially that emanating from Europe, have taken the wholly uncontroversial issue of animal sentience, which no one would have argued with, and are trying to turn it into a textbook bureaucratic nightmare.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, in Committee a lot of us argued very strongly for several amendments, and one of course was to strengthen the terms of reference and ensure that the committee was free and independent from government interference. I was very happy to spend today arguing over various amendments and we have here a whole hotchpotch of them, some of which are fine. However, we also have a naked attempt to filibuster and scupper the Bill by the right wing of the Tory party. I say: “Shame on you”. This Bill is far from perfect, but it is better than it was. Noble Lords must know that the public care very much about this issue and want to see something on the books.
It was also, of course, a manifesto commitment by the Government. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite would have supported it and been loyal Conservative Party members. I shall not speak again in this debate, because I think that it is a complete waste of my time. I shall simply vote against all the spoiling amendments that noble Lords opposite have put forward.

Viscount Ridley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and see her so loyally supporting my Government—and in the Lobbies as well, no doubt.
I shall add a point to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and, in reference to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, emphasise the question of the terms of reference and what they do to complicate the work of the committee. By the way, the chairman of this committee is supposed to spend 20 days a year on this, yet he has to look at all past policies, all future policies and all present policies in all aspects of government. That will be quite hard work for him.
The terms of reference note that the committee may seek outside input, including from “stakeholders amongst others”. If the committee is looking at process—a  point that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made—rather than policy, why consult stakeholders? Similarly, the terms of reference suggest that the committee
“may wish to prioritise policies … which are more significant in terms of Parliamentary, Departmental, Stakeholder or public interest”.
Is this about ensuring that all due regard is had to animal welfare in the process of reaching policy decisions or about the issues and decisions themselves? Will the committee focus on animal welfare issues that are of high profile as a result of campaigning by interest groups, which does not seem to have been the original intention?
The terms of reference refer to it being
“beneficial for UK Government Departments to seek advice from the Committee to assist them in understanding the effects of particular policies on the welfare of animals”.
It seems from wording like this that the committee will look not simply at process but at the policy itself that is under consideration. I hope that my noble friend will address this point, as it seems to be an issue of mission creep that we need to understand.

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have two amendments in this group but, before I turn to them, I congratulate my noble friend on his announcement last week with regard to soil. It was a significant step forward by Her Majesty’s Government, and one that is wholly welcomed by those concerned about our farming in this country and our ability to grow crops. I thank my noble friend very much for what he did last week and for his letter on it.
I turn to the Bill in front of us, to which I have tabled two amendments. Amendment 15 basically copies that of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who has just spoken, but it also has a second part to it, which is trying to be helpful to my noble friend to get him out of this particular problem. The problem is the retrospective nature of the legislation. In the terms of reference and accompanying letter, we are told that Defra expects the committee to produce between six and eight reports a year. I asked what the likely policy issues of Defra were that the committee would look at—to which the answer inevitably came back that it was up to the committee and not to Defra. However, I cannot believe that the committee will be kept busy looking at future policy of Defra; it is supposed to look across government, but the rest of the departments have to take absolutely no notice of the committee, because the Government merely “hope” that the rest of departments will pay attention to the committee. That is a positive step.
My Amendment 18 would allow the Bill to go through as it is worded but with the condition that, if there is going to be a retrospective report on policy that has already been implemented, the committee merely needs the written consent of the Secretary of State. That, surely, is a sensible way forward. It encourages the committee to look forward and not back and stops it from going on wild fishing trips into past, established policy to try to meet its target of six to eight reports a year. So the amendment is formulated in the hope that it will allow my noble friend to make a tweak to the Bill that will achieve the same result but with a little bit more sense to it.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, following Committee, in which I took part, this Bill has not really changed at all. As one who cares deeply about animal welfare and cruelty to animals, I would like to make a general comment before I turn to the specific amendments. The Secretary of State said recently, at a meeting that I attended, that he did not want to create a “hostage to fortune” in the future, but that is exactly what this Bill does. It is enabling legislation with no real detail; it has got such broad scope that it allows almost any interpretation. Frankly, it is the most terrible piece of legislation. It is a shocking piece of legislation and the Government should be embarrassed by it. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that this is yet another very un-Conservative measure for the right wing of the Conservative party, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out. It will be passed with the cheers of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. As taxes get raised to their highest for 70 years, do Ministers think people will continue to vote for a party that is not recognisably Conservative, or will voters desert us as they did indeed in Chesham?
Turning to the group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made an extremely good speech, pointing out so many things, and I cannot better it. But I will turn to other amendments later. I say to the Minister—and we have known each for some time and are friends, I hope—that this is a terrible piece of legislation and he needs to go back to the Ministry and tell them that.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lord Robathan’s remarks. I think this a perfectly terrible Bill, and I would like to speak to Amendment 1. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made the point that this Bill was Article 13 of the EU with bells on. He knows a lot more about this sort of legislation than I do. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to speak to this amendment, will explain why this Bill has to have bells on. Why could it not be just Article 13 of the withdrawal agreement? Why did we have to add things on to it? Many of us are disturbed at the propensity of our government machine—Whitehall departments—to always add things on to Bills and make them even more elaborate than they were originally intended to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, also made the point that his amendment was about process. Process, as I see it, and certainly in the days when I was in government, was all to do with legislation. When a department produced legislation, if that legislation affected other departments, it was circulated through those departments for their comments on it before it was ever submitted to Parliament. I do not quite understand what this new committee is going to do in looking at legislation before it is actually submitted to Parliament, compared with what happened before. Presumably, if the question of animal welfare came up, it went to the Department of Agriculture and it went to the Animal Welfare Committee who looked at it and said whether it was within its remit and whether it approved of it. So what is this committee doing that the Animal Welfare Committee did not do before? Perhaps my noble friend could elucidate that when he comes to speak.
Generally, what we are doing is expanding the whole mass of quangos and we have to think about the Climate Change Committee. It always advertises itself as a committee that advises the Government but seems to have a complete mind of its own when it comes to climate change. It seems to be obsessed with CO2 emissions. It never seems to champion or recognise what has actually been done in this country to reduce CO2 emissions, and it does not seem to take any account of the collateral damage. I hope this committee is not going to be another one like that.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I profoundly disagree with the two previous speakers, and I have no wish to be associated with the views that they expressed.
To look at one particular detail, my understanding of the committee is that it will produce reports which will then come to Parliament, where we can all see them. That publicity seems to me an excellent way of dealing with things. Of course, the committee would not be instigating legislation; it would be an advisory body. It will be up to the government departments concerned whether they choose to accept its advice, but at least we will know what this committee is thinking.

Lord Moylan: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, although I do not entirely agree with her uncritical support of the Bill. I want particularly to support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, to which I have lent my name, but also generally to support the other amendments in this group. The characteristic they have in common is that they deal with the retrospective powers of the committee—its powers to look back at existing policy and past practice—which clearly cause a degree of concern. My comments are intended to be largely helpful to the Government.
I have heard it said that the Government cannot support this amendment or the general thrust of these amendments because farming practice and husbandry practice go back decades—indeed, hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Therefore, they would say that it is impossible to look at the current situation or a change in the current situation without looking back at what it is changing or at the past. I would have a great deal of sympathy, as I think many people in the House would, with the Government if they advanced that argument. My suggestion, which I hope the Government will be able to take account of, is that an amendment could be crafted, perhaps by the Government, in response to this debate which ensured that the new animal sentience committee could look at existing and past policy only where the Government were coming forward with a specific proposal to change it—that unless there was a proposal to change it, the committee would not be able to look at current and existing policy.
I realise that is not quite the same as the amendment I have put my name to in support of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, but I do not think any of us here are trying to pin the Government down to a particular outcome—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that  she was generally supportive of this. We are coming  together around a sort of principle, which is that the ability of this committee to roam into existing policy at will should be limited, and it should be limited in ways that keep it focused on the present and the future, rather than going into the past. If my noble friend could find a way of agreeing something along those lines, I think the force of many of the amendments in this group would fall away.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend. I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for boosting my right-wing credentials. I think one thing the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and I have in common is that we find ourselves a little out of kilter with our respective parties in relation to the Bill before us this evening.
I have amendments in the third group, so I would just like to put two general queries to my noble friend the Minister. I would hazard a guess that, had we had this Bill in front of us when we were both serving as shadow Ministers in the Defra team some years ago, we would have been minded not to accept what is in the Bill before us today.
I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in moving his Amendment 1. I am proud to be an associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association, and I commend him for his work in flying the flag for vets—I think he is the sole flyer of that flag in this House. He adequately addressed not just the process but the retrospectivity aspect of this amendment. Could my noble friend the Minister give us a reassurance this evening that it is not intended that the work of the committee will have any retrospective effect—that is, going back over old laws in its work—should the Bill be carried in its present form?
I would also like to associate myself with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and ask for what particular reason—for some reason the manifesto did not reach me this time, possibly because we are not allowed to be candidates—

Lord Robathan: You have never read it anyway.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: I did—my noble friend teases me, but I did. I did not always agree with every single item in every single manifesto, but my understanding was that we made a manifesto pledge to roll into national law what was effectively, as has been rehearsed here this evening, set out in Article 13 of the EU treaty—which I do not think I have read either. My understanding is that that was our commitment. So I would like my noble friend the Minister, in summing up this debate, to set out for what reason it was not acceptable simple to rehearse in UK law what we had already committed to in EU law, because I believe that that would have been acceptable.

Lord Moylan: I add for the benefit of my noble friend that the Conservative Party manifesto for the last election contained—I have looked it up—simply a pledge that
“We will bring in new laws on animal sentience.”
Nothing more was said in any detail.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for that remark.
I am going to go on and query the path the Government have gone down and why aspects of the committee may be subject to judicial review in connection with this Bill, whereas every other Bill that has been put forward by this Government has not been deemed to be subject to such a judicial review. If the Minister will reassure me that there will be no retrospective effect and that we will revert, if possible, to the very limited effect of Article 13, I think it would have the unanimous support of the House today.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, these amendments broadly consider the remit of the committee regarding policy. Clause 1 sets up the committee. The stated purpose of the Bill is to make sure that animal sentience is taken into account when developing policy across government, but policy is not always set in aspic and I find it concerning that the majority of the amendments that have been put down in this group would prohibit the ASC considering policy formulated and implemented before the committee’s formation.
At the start of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about unintended consequences, but we should also look at the unintended consequences of this group of amendments if they are accepted. We believe that the prohibitions that are being put forward would prevent the committee considering how the ongoing implementation of recent and historic legislation affects the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The impacts can be significant. To take an example, the primary legislation used to prosecute hare coursing is the Hunting Act 2004 and the Game Act 1831. We believe that the ASC should be free to consider how the implementation of those laws affect the welfare of hares as sentient beings. While the ASC will be likely to focus its work on emerging policy, we believe it needs the freedom to consider existing legislation where it feels it is appropriate to do so.
Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would require scientific evidence to be published. It is very important that scientific evidence is taken into account right across the committee. It is clear from the terms of reference that that will be an important part of its work. But again I have concerns: requiring things to always be published before being presented to Parliament could place an unintended scientific barrier in front of the committee. I worked in publishing for many years, and I know that sometimes it can take a long time. I would not want to see the committee’s work hugely delayed as an unintended consequence of this amendment.
I will keep my comments brief throughout Report. We discussed at length in Committee many of the amendments before us again today. I do not want to waste time going back over issues that we have already spent a lot of time on, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to people’s concerns.

Lord Benyon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friends Lord Howard and Lord Caithness,  for their amendments on the subject of the animal sentience committee’s remit with respect to existing policies. My remarks will address all the amendments.
This is the first piece of legislation I have steered through the House. I am conscious that I am in the presence of experienced legislators and people very much more experienced, perhaps, that I was in the other place where, when a piece of legislation was described as “terrible” or “poorly drafted” it was usually code for the fact that the speaker did not agree with it. Here, I am sure that that is not the case and that noble Lords are much more discerning, and I will seek to answer their points, be more conciliatory in my remarks and address their concerns.
I thank noble Lords for their discussion on this issue, and for the opportunity to put on record a clear statement on the remit of the committee. The Bill is already drafted so as to ensure that animal sentience is actively considered in current policy-making and implementation and, in line with its statutory function as set out in the Bill, the committee will be expected to prioritise current or recent policy decisions. Prioritising policies that the Government are currently pursuing fulfils the committee’s statutory function under Clause 3. This clause requires the Secretary of State to respond to the committee’s reports and is the only legal consequence the committee reports have. As I have repeatedly stated, the purpose of the Bill is to provide a proportionate, targeted and timely accountability mechanism. There are limits to how far you can hold a current Government to account for the decisions they did not make, and this would certainly not be timely. I hope this addresses points made by my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lady McIntosh and others.
However, the value of the committee is in looking at policy issues that are live in some way, and the committee would not be acting in the public interest if it did not do that. There would be no benefit for animal welfare, for the public, for Parliament or for the Government in discussing policies that have long been customary, revised or resolved. To put it more simply, the committee would not be doing its job properly if it sought to rake over old coals and to reignite past policy issues that are now closed. If this happened, it is something that would need to be raised with the committee chair as part of the performance management and governance processes that will be in place.
Seeking to impose a rigid form of words in legislation on these matters risks excluding the committee from areas where its scrutiny would be valuable. Attempts to distinguish current policy from established policy in statute would leave the committee wide open to challenge if interpretations of the wording differed. We are also of the view that, for the committee to provide targeted and effective parliamentary accountability, the committee’s report should not be subject to approval or preselection by Ministers. I would caution against the approach proposed my noble friend Lord Caithness, which would require Ministers to agree to the preparation of any report.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about process. Clause 2(2) envisages that the committee can examine what adverse effects a policy might have on the welfare of animals and whether the Government are aware of all those possible adverse effects and fully understand  them so they can properly take them into account in their decision. This is clearly about the process followed in decision-making.
My noble friend Lord Ridley talked about the committee’s ability to consult stakeholders. He is right that the committee may choose to engage with a range of external bodies and individuals, as it sees fit. This stakeholder engagement is important as it will allow the committee to prioritise policies that are more significant in terms of the nature and scale of their effect on animals or the extent of parliamentary, departmental, stakeholder or public interest.
A number of general comments were made about the Bill. It honours a manifesto commitment and provides a legal recognition that animals are sentient beings. The legislation will provide assurance about how animal welfare will be taken into account in central government policy decisions.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom raised the issue of where the committee sits. We are creating an animal welfare centre of expertise in Defra, which covers all government expert advisory groups that support policy decisions affecting animal welfare. Within this centre, the animal sentience committee will consider how individual central government policies take account of animal welfare. It aims to ensure that Parliament can scrutinise how the Government take the welfare of animals as sentient beings into account, alongside other considerations, in developing and implementing their policies. The new arrangements are proportionate, timely and targeted.
With those comments, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that they will feel able and content not to press their amendments.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Before my noble friend sits down, could he answer the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that this is Article 13 with bells on? Why is so much added into this legislation, which goes way beyond Article 13?

Lord Benyon: It does not go way beyond Article 13, but it does create a committee that did not exist. There were other measures in the European Union which sought to give substance to the wording in Article 13—we will come on to talk about some of them, perhaps in the next group of amendments—by referring to cultural and other issues that were of concern to member states. We have tried to transpose the legal wording recognising animal sentience into UK law and have sought to make the Government’s decision-making better by giving them an expert committee to advise them.

Lord Cormack: Is not the noble Lord, Lord Trees, one of the most eminent and respected veterinary surgeons in our country? Could we not take his advice?

Lord Benyon: My noble friend is absolutely right. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, a lot in my few months in this role. I respect his views and his counsel and, wherever possible, I take it.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: Perhaps I may press my noble friend, because I did not follow what he said about retrospectivity—or perhaps he did not say anything. Will he confirm that there is no retrospective effect? I listened very carefully to what he said about animal sentience; I hesitate to say it, but I think he is confusing animal sentience and animal welfare. I think the mood of the House is to keep Article 13 on animal sentience and let the other committee that is already set up to look after animal welfare do the perfectly good job it is already doing.

Lord Benyon: I am grateful to my noble friend. I will not detain the House by repeating the paragraphs I have put on record in relation to the prioritising policies that the committee will look at. That will be for the current Government and the policies they are currently pursuing, and it will fulfil the committee’s statutory function under Clause 3. I went on to say—I hope this was clear—that the committee would not be doing its job properly if it sought to rake over old coals and reignite past policy issues that are now closed. My noble friend and noble Lords will know that words said by Ministers at the Dispatch Box hold sway when people try to interpret legislation. I hope I have been as clear as I possibly can be about the remit of this committee and the kinds of priorities it will look at. I hope that has reassured my noble friend.

Lord Trees: My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this short debate, and I thank the Minister for his answers. I note the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, which I and many others, I think, share, about the time, expense and bureaucracy that may be entailed in the legislation having retrospective force. I would still, however, say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, that I do not see why the animal sentience committee cannot look at current legislation and policy and comment on it. It is a statutory committee. I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and her passion for animal welfare, which I share, but I think that she said it was an advisory committee. The committee is statutory. It is a very powerful committee and is there to hold the Government to account, which is why more detail about its remit could usefully appear in the Bill. I respect the explanation by the noble Lord that the terms of reference are very clear about this, that and the other, but as I recall the committee itself can alter its terms of reference, because they are not made explicit in the Bill.
This issue of process is cardinal, and I hope it does not come back to bite us all. Having said that, I am not one to make futile gestures; I appreciate that the Opposition are not supporting amendments and that there is a strong government Whip. I support the essence of this Bill in toto, but one wishes to make constructive suggestions that might improve it. I very much appreciate the kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. With that, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Child Safeguarding
 - Statement

Baroness Barran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement following the sentencing of the stepmother and father of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes on Friday.
The whole nation is distraught at Arthur’s tragic and horrific death. We, across this House and across this country, find it impossible to imagine how any adult could commit such evil acts against a child, in particular parents and carers, to whom children look for love and protection. And I know that colleagues and people outside this place are seriously troubled that Arthur was subjected to a campaign of appalling cruelty and murdered after concerns had been raised with local services.
I want to tell you and colleagues across the House, and I want to assure the public, I am as determined as everybody in this House to get to the truth, expose what went wrong and take any action necessary to protect children. To do so, serious questions need to be asked. I want to make it clear that police officers, teachers, social workers, health workers and others go to work each day to try to make things better—to do their best at what are very difficult jobs. Those already serving our country’s most vulnerable children deserve our thanks, and I want to be extremely clear that no safeguarding professional should be the victim of any abuse.
The targeting of individuals is wrong and helps nobody. But that does not mean that we should not seek to understand what went wrong and how we can stop it from happening again. The public deserve to know why, in this rare case, things went horrifyingly wrong, and what more could be done to prevent abuse such as this happening again in future.
Since the horrendous deaths of Peter Connelly, Daniel Pelka and, sadly, others, the Government have established stronger multiagency working, putting a shared and equal duty on police, councils and health in local areas to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, alongside a role for schools.
I am sure that Members across the House will recognise that improvements have been made from previous reviews, but the question now is whether that is enough. In order to look at issues nationally as well as locally, we established the National Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel in 2017 for cases like Arthur’s. That is why, given the enormity of this case, the range of agencies involved and the potential for its implications to be felt nationally, over the weekend I asked Annie Hudson, chair of the National Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, to work with leaders in Solihull to deliver a single, national, independent review of Arthur’s death to identify what must be learned from  this terrible case. This will encompass local government, as well as those working in the police, health and education sectors.
Officials in my department are already in close contact with the Solihull safeguarding partnership, which is grateful for the support offered and agrees with this approach as the best way to deliver comprehensive national learning and identify whether there are any gaps that need to be addressed. Annie and her colleagues on the national panel who come from the police, health and children’s services, have dedicated their lives and decades-long careers to bettering the lives of the most vulnerable children in our society, and I have every faith that their review will be robust, vigorous and thorough.
I have already assured Annie, as I assure you now, that she will be given all the support she needs to do the job properly. This review will focus specifically on Arthur’s case, and identify where improvements need to be made. But I also want to make certain that we have looked at how all the relevant local agencies are working now, including how they are working together.
For that reason, I have also asked Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation to lead a joint targeted area inspection. I have asked that each of these inspectorates be involved because of the range of local services which had been involved in Arthur and his family’s life during the preceding months. These joint inspections are well established, but a new ambitious approach will be used, with a sharp focus on the entry point to the child protection system across all agencies. This will mean we can truly look at where improvements are needed by all the agencies tasked with protecting children in the Solihull area, so that we can be assured that we are doing everything in our power to protect other children and to prevent such evil crimes.
As part of this inspection, all the agencies tasked with protecting children at risk of abuse and neglect in Solihull will have their effectiveness considered and be instructed on where improvements must be made—both in Solihull, as well as where learnings can be applied in other areas around the country. These inspectorates have met today to plan this work, which will begin next week.
I, as well as officials in my department and across government, could not be taking this more seriously and have been working this weekend to bring everyone together to make sure this work can start immediately. Over the coming days, we will publish terms of reference and timelines for this national review and local inspection. Ahead of that, more widely, we are already investing heavily to help the legions of dedicated professionals on the front line deliver the care that we all know every child deserves.
Since the spending review in 2019, there have been year-on-year real-term increases for local government, as well as the unprecedented additional £6 billion funding provided directly to councils to support them with the immediate and longer-term impacts of Covid spending pressures, including children’s social care. Yet we have also known that the care system needed  bold and wide-ranging reforms which is why we have the independent review of children’s social care happening now.
I know that Josh MacAlister, who leads the review, will make recommendations about what a decisive child protection response needs to look like, given that it sits at the core of the system he is reviewing. Importantly, I know that the review will be looking at how social workers—especially those with the most experience—can spend time with families and protecting children, because we all know that social workers do their best work with families, not behind a desk.
I look forward to the review’s recommendations in due course, because in any complex system it is important—imperative in my view—to investigate thoroughly to learn and improve the system. My mantra continues to be that sunlight is the best possible disinfectant because, if we are to improve services where they need improving, we must share data and evidence.
Finally, I thank the prosecuting barrister, Jonas Hankin QC, his team, and the jury, for their service in this troubling case. As the court heard, Arthur’s tragic death is a result of the cruelty of his father and his father’s partner. No Government anywhere in the world can legislate for evil, but we will take action wherever we can to stop this happening again because we must do more. To do more, I end my Statement with a plea to everyone in our country. Anyone who sees or suspects child abuse can report their concerns to local children’s services or by contacting the government-supported NSPCC helpline for adults or practitioners concerned about a child or a young person. So if you see or suspect child abuse, report it. If you are worried about a child you know, report it. If something appears off, or you have seen something that troubles you, report it. As we uncover what went wrong and what led to Arthur’s tragic death, we must also strengthen our resolve to make sure that we prevent these crimes as much as they can possibly be prevented. We must make sure that those who would do wicked acts to children face justice. We must do absolutely everything in our power to protect vulnerable young children from harrowing and evil abuse. I commend this Statement to the House.”

Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I do not doubt the sincerity of the commitments that it contains. This has to be one of the most harrowing and tragic deaths any of us can imagine. My heart goes out to everyone who knew and loved Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. Talking to friends over the past few days, the first reaction they expressed was of course sorrow, but that was quickly followed by anger as to how such an awful fate could have been allowed to happen to little Arthur.
A serious case review is now under way and, while it is of course essential that it leaves no stone unturned in establishing what happened and what went wrong, it must also avoid simply repeating the recommendations of previous such reviews, such as those in respect of Victoria Climbié, Baby Peter, Daniel Pelka and too many others. Their serious case reviews reached  conclusions that were depressingly familiar: warning signs were not picked up; the invisibility of children; poor early interventions and support for families; social workers’ high caseloads; and poor lines of communication between the various agencies. The main issue for Government this time is surely that these failures keep occurring. How can we avoid being here again in a year or two in similarly distressing circumstances?
Obviously, there are many questions to be asked in relation to what did or not happen locally, but I hope that the blame game that has already started will not point fingers at social workers, because it is well established that they are overworked and often lack the necessary experience to cope with distressing cases. In respect of the Statement, I welcome that it contains a clear defence of professionals in the various agencies.
Too many social workers on the front line who are recently qualified are sent into situations to deal with difficult households, often with manipulative parents such as Arthur’s. Social workers need to be supported by senior management, and by that I do not mean the directors of children’s services; I am talking about line managers and senior managers who themselves will have built up experience of troublesome families and should more often accompany inexperienced social workers, to provide the support that they need so that their teams can provide what is required by children in those difficult and often chaotic families.
If questions need to be asked about what happened at the local level, they also need to be asked in the national context. When the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Education gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in 2016, he committed his department to the target of all vulnerable children receiving the same high quality of care and support, with the best outcome for every child at the heart of every decision made. Three years later he returned to the committee and was obliged to admit that the target was delayed until 2022 because the DfE did not have a detailed plan in place to deliver the target. I do not like the blame game but, in the case of little Arthur, if it is going to begin then let it begin at the top, with a department that is inexplicably unable even to put in place a plan to protect the most vulnerable children in society. We are three weeks away from 2022 so does the Minister know whether her department yet has that plan ready? I do not expect her to be able to answer that question today, but we all deserve an answer and I hope she will write to me when she has it.
Let us not ignore the elephant in the room: the funding of local authorities and, by extension, their ability adequately to fund children’s services. Both have suffered substantial cuts through the austerity policies of Governments between 2010 and 2019—decisions, as I have said many times in your Lordships’ House, rooted in political ideology not necessity. The Minister mentioned the MacAlister review of children’s social care, which has already signalled that an increase in resources will be necessary to begin to bring children’s services up to an acceptable level. I look forward to that report when it appears next year, and I hope the Government will use it as an opportunity to reassess the importance that they attach to children’s social  care and wider children’s services. We hear a lot about adult social care, and rightly so, but we definitely need to hear more about children’s social care. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to do—I hope I am quoting the Statement correctly—whatever it takes, whatever is necessary, to keep children safe.
Over the last few days my mind has consistently returned to an image of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes that appeared in many newspapers and on many websites. It showed a happy little boy in his Birmingham City football top, with a big smile, full of potential and with his whole life ahead of him until two evil monsters shamefully and horrifically cut his young life short. Let us try to remember that smile, not just the awful events that took it and his life away.

Lord Storey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement, which I thought was very thorough. I agree with every word. It is a tragedy that Arthur lost his life in such a horrific way. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, talked about those photographs of a happy young child with his school bag on his shoulders. You just cannot believe how people can be so evil as to do that to a child, to poison and abuse him in the way that they did.
A single child abused, a single child suffering as poor Arthur did, is one life lost too many. Sadly though, as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, both rightly said, we have been here before. Daniel Pelka, Keanu Williams and Keegan Downer are the names of only a few children murdered by their guardians. What lessons have we taken from those previous cases to empower social services with the mission of preventing child abuse?
Let us not forget that the serious case review published after Baby P’s death in 2007 said it could and should have been prevented. Every agency involved in his care, including health, the police and social services, had been well motivated and wanted to protect him, but their practice collectively and individually was completely inadequate and failed to properly challenge the explanations of maltreatment. More than 10 years on from that appalling crime, we see this tragic murder of young Arthur.
I think people struggle to understand why the photographs of his bruising and the complaints raised seemed not to satisfy those concerned. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that this should not be a blame game against social services. As a head teacher, I worked with social workers a great deal and I found caring, hard-working individuals. However, not through the fault of any individual, I also found that bureaucracy meant that it took time for issues to be dealt with.
I remember the case of a little girl who we felt was being abused. We contacted social services, but a case conference had to be arranged and we had to make sure that all the partners could be at the case conference. We would be told, “We can’t make this date or that date”, as the weeks went on. Eventually, the case conference was held and, I am glad to say, strong action was taken in that case; we were right to have raised the flag on that event. The point I am making, however, is that it is not the fault of individuals—individuals care. No social worker, teacher, police  officer or health worker wants this to happen. What they want to see is speedy action but, sadly, that does not happen because of the system that we currently have. In this case, these were evil people who, sadly, would probably have circumvented any system, but that is not to say that we should not have tried.
I was interested to hear the comments of the Children’s Commissioner on “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday. She made a number of important points and commented on the serious case review under way, saying that
“we need to see what that says but we must take decisive action and now.”
We cannot wait months, or whatever it may be, for this case review to happen; we need to know what we are going to do now. So I put it to the Minister: following the words of Dame Rachel de Souza, what does the Minister think we should directly do now?
It is essential that we protect vulnerable children and families. The national review needs to take into account the significance and scale of the circumstances of Arthur’s murder and allow findings to be disseminated around the country. We must identify the lessons that must be learned and ensure that nothing like this is ever allowed to happen again.

Baroness Barran: I thank both noble Lords for the tone of their remarks and their support for the Statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I reiterate that we will leave no stone unturned in trying to understand and address what happened in this case, both in terms of its local implications and nationally.
I understand the focus of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on funding and the pressures that local government and children’s social care have been under, but I would say again that there really has been a shift; since 2019, there have been year-on-year real increases for local government. The latest spending review shows that the core spending power for local authorities is estimated to increase by an average of 3% in real terms each year until the next spending review. Importantly, that includes £200 million for family help, as part of a £500 million package to make sure that all children get the best start in life.
Both noble Lords asked what is happening on the ground, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised the issue of the performance of local children’s services teams around the country. He will be aware that we have moved from only 36% of children’s services teams being judged to be good in 2017 to, today, 50% being judged to be good or outstanding. Solihull’s children’s services team is currently rated as requiring improvement. We intervene decisively where local authorities are failing, and we continue to facilitate and fund sector-led improvement.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who said that we cannot wait; we need to do something now. Work had already started in Solihull. It is part of the strengthening families programme, which is very tailored support for local authority children’s services teams, where they follow a clear model. That work started in October this year. It is also getting support through the sector-led improvement partners, which is the more bespoke element, so the first takes well-understood and well-established improvement programmes and  applies them in the local authority in question, and then the sector-led improvement partners allow for a more bespoke approach. Clearly, events such as this give a renewed urgency to the work that was already in train, and I will of course write to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, with more detail on the implementation plan.
Both noble Lords asked—possibly not in these words, but I hope I paraphrase accurately—how we avoid being here again. We have the two new reviews that we have just announced, and we will need to wait and see what they advise. We cannot pre-empt them. We also have the care review, which we hope will come forward with very practical, actionable recommendations focusing on empowering social workers to take those extremely difficult decisions to which both noble Lords referred.
I genuinely think that great progress has been made over the past 10 years in implementing almost all of the recommendations of Professor Eileen Munro’s review, and major investment is going into the workforce, with 10% more social workers today than in 2017. A great deal of work is going on. We are trying to ensure that that is sequenced and delivered in a way that is practical and effective on the ground.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the repeat of the Statement and I shall be very brief, but it is necessary to emphasise, yet again, that the awful suffering and death of this defenceless child at the hands of those to whom the child looked for love and protection must stay with us. It must be part of our thinking as we go forward.
The law makes it very clear, for all services dealing with child protection work, that the child must be at the centre and the focus of all their activities: the child is of paramount concern . It is very tough work being on the front line, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, was correct to say that each of those front-line workers deserves the support of more experienced staff around them who can take a more objective view and support them in what they are doing. As has been said, we must not fall into the trap of scapegoating the youngest, least experienced and most junior of people who go into this area of work.
The review is greatly to be welcomed, but I say to the Minister that it is right to say that since 2019 there has been an increase in local authority funding, but, boy, for the decade before 2019 there were cuts and cuts and cuts, year after year. That has meant that many of the support, preventive and family services that social workers could rely on to look at the relationship between the child and the family have disappeared.
I welcome the review, but it will take some time for it to complete its work, and I wish it well. But, to take some action now, would the Government be willing to write a strong letter to the senior people in each of these key services to remind them of their duties and responsibilities in law to protect children subject to the possibility of abuse or danger? It could be said these people already know this, but we have to be seen to react and we have to get across our concern and say,  not just to the people of Solihull but to people nationwide who carry the responsibility for protecting children that now is the time for them to look at and support their front-line services to ensure that no child in their patch experiences this level of abuse and awful suffering. I hope the Government will consider doing that.

Baroness Barran: I thank the noble Lord for his comments. His remark at the beginning that we should never forget the terrible suffering of Arthur reminds me of when I founded the domestic abuse charity SafeLives. As I was having lunch with the noble Lord, I thought I should read his report into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié. As your Lordships can imagine, it was possibly the most terrible thing I have ever read. But reading it is obviously less awful than what these children have suffered, so I absolutely share his view that we need to keep that front of mind, and of course I will talk to colleagues in the department about his suggestion.

Baroness Kingsmill: My Lords, I would like to add to the comments made. When I was a practising lawyer, I represented social workers in two child abuse inquiries and the two little girls, Kimberley Carlile and Jasmine Beckford, still have a place in my heart. They were brave little four year-olds who were murdered by their stepfather. In this case I think it was the stepmother who was the protagonist. At the time, I represented the social workers, but many other agencies were exposed to this child and were unable to recognise the symptoms of the abuse.
Nowadays, there is a greater awareness of the risk factors as far as children are concerned, and, perhaps, of the absence of proper parental care. But there are not sufficient funds to take the necessary protective actions, and for the necessary support to be given, maybe to parents who are struggling—which is not a popular position, but sometimes is a factor in child abuse cases.
We have to understand that this is a case of money, and of funding. Too many local authorities are struggling to provide basic services. There are many demands on their funds and there have been substantial cuts. I recognise that in recent times there has been some increase, but it is an increase on a very low base. There have been substantial cuts and a substantial shortage of services provided by the necessary agencies that need to be aware of and alert to these situations.
So I ask the Minister once again to raise these issues in the places where it can make a difference. We also need to recognise that we need to do some more research into why these parents behave in this way. It is too easy to describe them as monsters—they are, obviously; their behaviour is unforgivable, unimaginable and horrendous for the rest of us. However, in the two cases in which I was closely involved for many, many weeks, both the parents had themselves been victims of abuse. That does not in any way excuse their subsequent behaviour, but it is quite sensible to look at those situations as well.

Baroness Barran: The noble Baroness is right that of course we need to understand, even if that does not excuse behaviour. To her first point, I agree that  there is greater awareness of the risk factors that children face across a wide range of different aspects, but we are still battling with some of the same issues about sharing information, understanding the significance of information and, critically, acting on it. Clearly there is more work to do.
Funding is of course extremely important, which is why we have made the commitments that I have already set out. Also, the noble Baroness would accept that there are other aspects that go along with funding to make sure that we unlock the maximum impact for children, including how services are organised, how practitioners are empowered and supported and how they are trained. Those are all areas that we are investing in to make sure that we get the best result for our children.

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone: My Lords, this of course goes right back over very many years, and we have been here before—in my case, right back to Maria Colwell. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has led this House and led the departments through these tragedies over many years. When people say that it will never happen again, I think that is a false line of thought—there will always be disturbed, distorted, evil parents. It goes against the grain—it is totally abhorrent—but we have to support those who are sceptical or cynical. It was said that social workers should be in the community and not at their desk; actually, they should be at their desk writing careful notes, liaising with others and making sure that we do everything in our power to diminish these appalling situations. It takes a village to bring up a child, as has often been well said. This is not only about the agencies; it is about the neighbours, the volunteers and the community as a whole.

Baroness Barran: I absolutely agree with much of what my noble friend said, but I think that she would also agree that there are children who, when things happen, are genuinely hidden from us—or substantially hidden—and there are others to whom terrible things happen in plain sight. We should at least make sure that the latter are addressed effectively.

Lord Hogan-Howe: My Lords, sadly, we are here again. To the point from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, which is about looking to the future, one of the terrible things about this particular death was that we saw and we heard the torture of this child and the terrible life they were enduring. I wonder whether there, there might be some hope for the future in the sense that technological surveillance of the victim, as in this case, or the suspects—the people who eventually murdered him—may give us more hope. Sadly, this poor child was alone with the people who tortured him and eventually murdered him.
The Government are already experimenting with tagging. People can be monitored for their alcohol and drug intake and, if someone has a mental health issue, it is now possible to see whether they are taking medication. We could have technological surveillance of both the potential victim—the child—and the people who might hurt him, as in this case. Who is in the home at the time, who is available as a witness, the condition of the child—it is now possible to  technologically surveil all these things. Some people may argue that this is an intrusion too far and an intrusion into the privacy of the family. But the only reason this intrusion is being suggested is that, presumably as in all these cases, a child is already at risk. This is not an intrusion without cause; it is an intrusion with cause, where no one wants to disserve the family, but everybody wants to make sure that the child is kept safe in the future.
Therefore, in terms of an immediate response, I wonder whether research in that area—or perhaps this review—could quickly look into that and pilot it. Of all the pilots that happen, that might give us some hope for the future fairly quickly. I worry that all our investments and all our encouragements do not make people work better. We will always have human error and people on the front line will be worried to make the wrong intervention. Perhaps that is what happened in this case. I think technology can assist. It would not be foolproof in any way, but I wonder whether it is some hope for the future.

Baroness Barran: The noble Lord makes a really interesting point. I am not aware of whether that is an aspect that the reviews will be looking into, but I will take it back to the department and if there is evidence, I am very happy to share it with the noble Lord.

Lord Framlingham: My Lords, someone I know with great experience in these matters tells me that in the years before the involvement of social services, in a case of suspected child cruelty the first knock on the door would be from a policeman or a policewoman. Occasionally that resulted in a bit of embarrassment, but I think perhaps children’s lives were better protected in those days. Perhaps we ought to give this matter a little more thought.

Baroness Barran: I understand the spirit of my noble friend’s remarks. With respect to him, the thing that first the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and then others have brought out is the fact that so often in these cases different organisations, whether it be the school, the GP, the police or children’s services, have different snippets of information about a child. Critically, and very often, we need to share those to get an accurate picture of that child’s life.

Lord Bichard: My Lords, I associate myself with comments from other noble Lords about the tone of today’s Statement, which I think is a major step forward. However, will the Minister ask the two reviews if they will specifically look at the issue of sharing information and data? I ask that for two reasons. First, those of us who have been involved in these sorts of cases—I am afraid over decades—too often have seen perceived problems in sharing data and information behind the tragic outcomes. Secondly, we will tomorrow be debating the Health and Social Care Bill which includes a specific provision to improve the sharing of data where adults are concerned but says nothing at all about children. That surely could be one of the immediate things that we could do. Even if it was not a major problem in this case, it is a major problem too often, and we could do something about that.

Baroness Barran: The noble Lord makes very important points. I am not trying to suggest that we have reached anywhere like where we need to get to, but he will be aware that we published new information-sharing guidance in June 2018 and have followed that up with rolling out the child protection information-sharing system so that health and local authorities can share information. It is now live in what are technically known as unscheduled health settings, so A&E, and more recently, it has been expanded to include school nurses and health visitors. It is an important tool, and we expect it to be in all healthcare settings by March 2022-23. In terms of the Health and Social Care Bill, I am sure that as a result of what has happened recently, we will be reviewing every option, including the one the noble Lord referred to.

Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former police officer. I welcome everything in the Government’s Statement. In the aftermath of this horrendous incident, there will be many people—safeguarding professionals, police, friends, family and community—who will be dealing with guilt and hopelessness. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that every possible support will be made available to those who need it at this perilous time?

Baroness Barran: My noble friend is absolutely right, and I am pleased that I can reassure him. Obviously, there are children who will have been at school with Arthur and people who will have been involved in his life in many different ways, and we are making sure that all of them receive the support they need.

Lord Farmer: My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the review will look at the contribution of family breakdown? Evidence shows that children on the at-risk register are eight times more likely to be living with a natural parent and their current partner than the general population. Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children living with two biological parents. Will the review consider the contribution that robust prevention and early intervention can make to safeguarding children?

Baroness Barran: My Lords, on my noble friend’s last point, I know that he is aware, and extremely supportive, of moves that this Government are making to focus more on early intervention and on the first thousand days of a child’s life. In terms of whether the review will look specifically at family breakdown, I am not aware of that although clearly that appears relevant in this case. If it is different to that, I will let my noble friend know.

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock: My Lords, can the Minister let us know whether the review will look specifically at the effect of closing schools on this case? Many of us fear that although Arthur sadly lost his life, many other children have probably been abused because they have not been going to school and the schools have not been involved in monitoring and feeding back.

Baroness Barran: The issue of children being out of school is an important one. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that schools are an incredibly important protective factor for many children. That is why we are so keen as a Government, public health permitting, to keep our schools open with a real focus on attendance and working very closely with schools and children’s social care so that where children are not in school that is followed up and properly understood. In terms of the details of the review in relation to Arthur’s own attendance, as I said, the terms of reference are being set at the moment and I am not aware of the details.

Baroness Sanderson of Welton: My Lords, there are so many distressing factors involved in Arthur’s death, but perhaps one of the most upsetting is that he had family who loved him and who raised their concerns. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government will consider giving more focus to raising the awareness and status of kinship care, as recommended in The Case for Change?

Baroness Barran: I hope my noble friend will be pleased to know that in the Government’s independent review of social care we will be looking at how we can further support kinship families for all the reasons that my noble friend touched on. There are about 150,000 children in this country living in kinship care arrangements, so it is a really important element. In recent years, we have provided extra support to kinship carers who are looking after a child who was previously in care under a special guardianship order. Those carers can now access therapeutic services funded by the adoption support fund to help those children deal with the trauma that they have experienced. We have also recently changed the school admissions fair access protocol so that more children in kinship care will have access to schools that will support them with their kinship placement.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, the time allowed for Back-Bench questions has now elapsed.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
 - Report (Continued)

Amendment 2

Lord Marland: Moved by Lord Marland
2: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—“(1A) The function of the Committee is to determine whether, in the process of formulating policy, it is satisfied the Government is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.(1B) It is not the function of the Committee to comment on the policy decisions of Ministers or to recommend future policy or changes to existing policy.(1C) It is for Ministers to take into account any other considerations of public interest, including economic, cultural and religious considerations, as well as the impact on different species, in the formulation and implementation of any policy.  (1D) Schedule (Animal Sentience Committee) has effect.”Member’s explanatory statementThis would clarify the Committee’s role and make clear the Committee is limited to commenting on process. It also makes explicit that Ministers should take into account any other public interest considerations. It gives effect to the Schedule, which sets out the Committee’s role and function.

Lord Marland: My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who, sadly, has fallen to the Covid virus, and we of course wish him well. It falls to me to take on the challenge of trying to persuade the Government, who so far have been pretty unpersuadable, to take this Bill more seriously and put it into better shape. For the record, I do not consider myself, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested, a right-wing Tory, even though some of my colleagues do. This has nothing to do with right or left. I think that the general feeling in the House was that this is a badly constructed Bill. I know that some of the government amendments have the support of the Liberal Democrats and Labour, which means that it is not a well-supported Bill.
For those who have just joined this debate, I say the following: I do not farm, and I rarely fish. I am not an industrial fisherman or commercial farmer; occasionally I shoot—but what I really enjoy is our green and pleasant land, and living in the countryside. As far as I am concerned, it has been under responsible stewardship for a very long time, or it would not still be a green and pleasant land. If I am a Tory, which I am, I believe the well-known Conservative Party tenet that people do better when the Government do least. Here we have a Bill that seeks to interfere with people and how they run their lives. It is not just this Bill on its own, in isolation; we should look at the general onslaught of change that is happening to farmers in the countryside.
How do we arrive at this place? It is extraordinary. I may be totally wrong, but I can count four animal welfare-related Bills, three of which come under a new umbrella of animal welfare created by Defra. Ministers say that they want experts to advise them on sentience, but they are getting loads of advice. They could just come to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and get terrific advice from him, or the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and get fantastic advice from her, because they are well-known experts. It is why they have been appointed to this House—among many other reasons, I hastily add. It just demonstrates another way of Defra interfering with farming, the countryside and fishing. It is setting down standards and definitions of standards that many other countries do not support. Not even the European Union has gone this far in setting out standards, insisting that our farmers and fishermen adhere to a certain group of standards.
Yet on the other hand, the Government are signing trade deals with these countries and allowing imports of various goods from countries that will not adhere to the same welfare sentiments that we do. We will still get lobsters from Canada—we will be able to get lobsters from Scotland, by the way, as this relates to the United Kingdom. We will still be able to get octopus from Spain not killed in the same way as we  think it should be. We will get langoustines from Scotland and France killed totally differently than the ones that we have—and prawns, as we know, come from Thailand and other countries like that.
There is no civilised way of killing animals, or anybody, for that matter—whether it is slitting their throat, catching them in nets and leaving them out of air on fishing boats, hooking them and shooting them, stunning them or boiling them. They are all terrible ways to die. We should bear in mind that that is the case. Yet Defra is going to appoint a committee that sits as judge and jury on how these animals and sentient beings should be killed—in the animals’ case, but also it will give the description of sentient beings. This will destroy the livelihoods of our fishing industry, which will not be able to compete on the same level field, and it will make farming very difficult.
Most people I know are welfare inclined towards animals. I certainly am, and I have not yet met any who are not. There are, I freely admit, 10% who are not—but this legislation will never protect us from the 10%; it just hurts the 90%. We will never stop illegal trapping, poaching or illegal netting, yet this Government seek to impose standards on us. One argument that has been used by Ministers is that social media is urging them to carry out these sorts of commitments, but social media is not the way in which to govern the country. Governing the country must be for the benefit of everybody, not those who decide to describe their views and impose them on Ministers. It is Ministers who are elected to opine rather than committees to tell them. In short, we end up with a series of new quangos, from a Government who in theory have been against quangos, another layer of costs on our farming and fishing communities, and an imposition on those who try to live in the countryside in an honest and fair way. I am sorry to spend more time on the general subject, but I see some new faces in this debate, and I wanted to alert them to the fallacy of large parts of this Bill.
In speaking to Amendment 2, I shall speak also to Amendment 48, which would give effect to Amendments 3 and 5, leaving out subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 consequentially. The amendments would clarify that the committee is concerned with the process by which current policy is being formulated, and that it is not concerned with policy decisions or policy changes, whether proposing new policy or changes to existing policy. The amendment also seeks to clarify that it remains for Ministers—amazingly—to undertake the balancing exercise between animal welfare and other public interest considerations. This also limits the likelihood of ministerial decisions being challenged in court. We have heard from a former Master of the Rolls that there will be umpteen challenges to these decisions, yet our current Government do not listen to those wise words from such eminent people.
The outstanding issue remains of whether a Minister can be said to have reached the appropriate policy decision when the Animal Sentience Committee reports that all due regard has not been had to animal welfare in reaching its decision. It is hard to see how a policy decision can be properly taken when the process by  which that decision has been reached has been judged deficient. I fear that the result will be many uncomfortable appearances before Parliament by Ministers.
The proposed Schedule, which is given effect by the amendment, simply suggests some statutory structure for the committee—and how badly it needs statutory structure. Everybody has spoken about the importance of that, and I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response on it. There is also no current requirement for departments to co-operate with the sentience committee; we are merely told that Defra expects government departments to do so. A department that fails to co-operate will simply be reported as having not co-operated. What use would that be in advancing animal welfare, having one department not co-operating but told, “Sorry, you haven’t co-operated, but it does not matter”?
Schedule 1 also sets certain criteria for appointments to the committee to ensure the necessary expertise and to exclude persons who are not independent or may have other agendas. Most of us are terrified of someone like Chris Packham, for example. The other day he took a petition supported by 10,000 schoolchildren to Her Majesty the Queen, which said that she must rewild her entire estate so that we can have bears and wolves back on it. Imagine going out of Balmoral with your corgis and being confronted by a bear and a wolf. I mean, what sort of people are we listening to?
There are so many holes in this, and there is such a lack of clarity, that I thoroughly despair for the countryside in the future. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister—who, of course, is a practitioner, as a farmer and landowner himself, and a practical man—can give us assurances that we are not being overrun by an endless flurry of legislation where the countryside is being penalised every time it turns up and that actually the status quo can still be maintained.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, I am speaking in support of Amendment 2 and Amendment 27, to which I have added my name. In short, these amendments seek to restore so-called Lisbon treaty provisions, or balancing considerations, to our laws on animal welfare, old and new. The arguments in favour are substantial, relating to practices in this country, and legal, relating to the avoidance of judicial review—on which I hope the House will listen to the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which was apparently inserted by reason of pressure from this country, says:
“In formulating and implementing the Union’s … policies”,
et cetera,
“the Union and the Member States shall … pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
Far be it from me to want to continue any European law, but this particular provision did in fact mirror what was already the situation in this country. My concerns if it is not enacted relate to medical research and religious traditions in killing animals.
The Lisbon provision successfully kept issues out of court, and religious minorities were content with it. Not to include this amendment is to open the door to vigorous disagreements over traditional practices and to more judicial review—and if there is one thing this Bill was supposed to do, it was to corral the committee and the Minister in policy issues. Muslim spokespersons are likely to be as worried about halal as are the representatives of the far smaller religious Jewish community. In the past, they have lived comfortably with the Lisbon balancing factors, and we want this to continue.
The committee might decide a particular point on this, but a Minister will have to take into account the wider considerations of cultural and religious organisations and form a view in accordance with them. Without the balancing factors that this amendment would introduce, both sides are wide open to judicial review.
The last time I spoke on this, I criticised the Bill as unnecessary and I worried about restrictions on medical research, inter alia. Living in Oxford as I do has meant witnessing protests by so-called animal liberationists. As recently as April this year, they were protesting just two miles away from the laboratory where the esteemed scientist Sarah Gilbert was working on the AstraZeneca vaccine—which, no doubt, some of them would be happy to take, and if not they would selfishly put others at risk. I hope that medical research is included in the term “public interest” in Amendment 2. The reference to legislative provisions in Amendment 27 is certainly meant to include the many laws we have about research on animals.
All our talk about inclusivity and diversity demands due respect for what is important to minorities and to others who have for centuries had a special relationship with animals and wildlife. We do not want today’s cancel culture extending to interference with medical research and peaceful coexistence, and Article 13 would be a safeguard. Moreover, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights could, through the Lisbon treaty, be brought to bear in this amendment.
On religious rites, particularly at issue in the present context is religious animal slaughter. The importance of expressly preserving in the Bill the right of citizens to adhere to their religious practices is perfectly clear. That right falls within Article 9 of the European convention and is reflected in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has highlighted in many cases the importance of the rights protected by Article 9 in a pluralist democratic society. Our own Human Rights Act 1998, which enabled disputes on convention rights to be resolved in our own courts, contains a specific provision, in Section 13, that:
“If a court’s determination of any question … under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation … of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.”
It is not necessary for present purposes to go into the nature of religious animal slaughter in the form of shechita or its Muslim equivalent. There is scientific evidence on both sides of the debate about the humanity of this. In fact, when one reads about the terrible cruelty, referred to earlier in this debate, that we routinely  inflict deliberately or by accident—in the electrocution of chickens, the killing of pigs, the decapitation of rabbits, the suffocation of fish, the boiling alive of lobsters, et cetera, which we will get to—we really have nothing to be proud of in all our practices of killing animals.
It is clear that the protection of the right to manifest religious belief is enshrined in the treaty obligations we already have and our own domestic legislation. Therefore, there can be no good reason why, as in the case of Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, the considerations and recommendations of the sentience committee should not be made expressly subject to respect for religious rites and medical research.
On 6 July, the Minister gave an assurance about respect for halal and kosher traditional killing, but in the same breath he reminded the House that anything could be changed. Therefore, it behoves the Government to proactively accept Amendment 27—and indeed Amendment 2—both to safeguard religious rites and medical research and to minimise judicial review challenges. I cannot think of any good reason why the amendment should be rejected.
We hope to change the Minister’s mind before Third Reading, and I shall continue to press for this safeguard today and later. As the Bill stands, the committee is not required to respect medical research and rites and traditions, yet the Minister will be bound to consider them when receiving the committee’s recommendations. Without this amendment, his decision and legal position will be much more vulnerable and difficult. I therefore urge him most strongly to accept the amendments which place the Lisbon treaty back where it should be in this country.

Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I intervene very briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has just said, particularly with respect to medical research. I have looked up which kinds of animals were used in the development of treatments and vaccines for Covid-19 in the last couple of years. They include humanised mice bred to have human ACE2 genes in them. Experiments on SARS-like viruses were being done on these mice in one city in particular for many years before the pandemic: Wuhan. The animals also included Syrian hamsters, because they have similar symptoms to human beings; monkeys, because vaccine safety always has to be tested in non-human primates; ferrets, because they have very similar symptoms when they get respiratory diseases; pigs, on which vaccines were tested; and sheep, which were used for plasma for purifying antibodies. All of these were vital to the extraordinary speed with which treatments and preventions for Covid-19 were pursued in the last year.
Nobody is suggesting that the existence of this committee will result in the banning of such research or anything like that. But it is possible that, in formulating a research proposal of this kind, you might find you run up against legislation that, in deference to the sentience committee, says that an extra step needs to be taken to check that it is really necessary to use animals in this way. Be in no doubt: all of these animals suffered, and they suffered deliberately from diseases that we gave them as a result of this work. I  would hate to think that this Bill would result in anything that slowed down the urgency of medical research in a situation like this.

Lord Moylan: My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 27, to which I have put my name. I have the great privilege of following the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in doing so. This amendment goes to the heart of what I see, perhaps eccentrically, as the problem with the Bill. The Bill seems to be about animals and their welfare, and it seems to be based on science, but really it is a Bill about humans and our moral standing. It is not about our moral obligations—all animal welfare legislation for the last 200 years either articulates or creates moral and legal obligations on us; that is what law does—but rather it is about our moral standing. It is the ambition of the people who are promoting the concept of animal sentience that it should be a common moral measure, putting humans and animals on the same moral plane, differenced only by the degree of sentience that they evince.
I find this a really false anthropology. So it is absolutely right that the Bill, which actually makes no reference to humans, should say something about them, if only to try to achieve a better balance in the moral architecture that the Bill seeks to create. Amendment 27 does that. It says that there are some things about human beings that should not be trampled on by this Bill, by the principle behind it, or by the animal sentience committee it creates. Those are quite basic things: they are to do with religion and religious practice, culture and your local region or locality—the place where you belong. All Amendment 27 does is ask that those things should be carved out and specially protected—not in an innovative way, because in fact they are already protected in the European Union treaty, in the language that we adopted before. It is simply about incorporating that language back, not in a copy-and-paste way but because we genuinely believe that those things about human life are important and should be protected. That is why I support Amendment 27.
While I am on my feet, I am going to make a comment on Amendment 48, in the same group. It is a slightly more procedural comment—it is really a question to my noble friend. We have been told since Committee, through the issuance of the terms of reference of the new committee—which are not statutory as I understand it, but of course I am always happy to be corrected—that it is to be set inside and corralled by, so to speak, a new Defra centre of excellence on animal welfare. Other committees that already exist will also be brought within that nest, but the other birds in this nest are not statutory committees—they are creatures or creations of Defra, whereas this new committee is a statutory committee. I simply do not understand—this may be because I am relatively new—how it is that, through some non-statutory terms of reference, a committee that we are today being asked to give statutory independence to, can be reliably told that it will be part of this centre. What if it decided not to be? It is going to have an independent board; what if the board decided that the centre trammelled it or interfered with its work? My question to my noble friend is this:  if this committee is going to be on the basis he says, corralled inside the new centre for excellence, should that not be in the Bill?

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I understand the worries of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about including or not including matters that relate to medical science and the slaughter of animals by ritual, religious methods. But unless I am much mistaken—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the Act that deals with the slaughter of animals specifically exempts ritual slaughter from what would otherwise be illegal. By the same token, we have legislation that deals with medical experiments which already tightly controls what may or may not be done. I cannot see, therefore, that the amendment being advocated can have any real substance to it, given those restrictions, and also bearing in mind that the committee that is being set up, although it is being set up by statute, does not have legal powers of any kind whatever. It will be entirely up to the relevant Ministers whether or not they accept any recommendations from that committee. In order to change the rules about medical science or the slaughter of animals, I believe there would have to be primary legislation. I hope my noble friend can confirm this.

Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I intervene briefly to support Amendment 2 in the names of my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland. I also wish my noble friend a speedy recovery from Covid. As my noble friend Lord Marland, who spoke so convincingly to the amendment, said, the animal sentience committee will be both judge and jury. My worry is that it will also be legislator, since it seems to me almost certain that, in the way the Bill is currently drafted, it is likely to stray into the area of scrutinising policy as well as process.
I remain worried that the committee will also overlap with the work of the Animal Welfare Committee, as the Countryside Alliance and other institutions that actually understand nature and animal behaviour have pointed out. This committee is likely to be comprised of people who may have a huge understanding of matters of science and parts of the countryside but lack the experience to really appreciate the relationship between the countryside and the animal kingdom.
What about this animal welfare centre of expertise? I understand it is supposed to settle points of dispute with other committees. Which other committees is the new committee likely to be in dispute with? Obviously, it will be the Animal Welfare Committee. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we would wish to create an animal sentience committee which is obviously going to cover points that are already covered by the Animal Welfare Committee. I thought that, under this Government, we were likely to see some rationalisation and reduction of the number of committees and quangos being established. I regret very much that it looks as though we are likely to see the reverse.
I would also like to comment on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoken to very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. My noble friend Lady Fookes has just pointed out, quite correctly, that there are already exemptions for medical  science in some legislation, but I think those exemptions are very much narrower than the exemptions that would be achieved by the amendment in the name of the noble Earl. The amendment is quite welcome, and I strongly support it, particularly as, having spent many years in Japan, I came to be very partial to Japanese cuisine. I fear that most methods used, including in this country by Japanese restaurants, to kill fish might fall foul of the opinions of the animal sentience committee. I think it could easily lead to a lot of unwelcome interference.
I also very much welcome the speech by my noble friend Lord Moylan, who explained so well that the sentience of animals is different from that of us. It is relative, and nobody would argue that the sentience of a dog is the same as that of a lobster.
I also strongly support Amendment 48, because to set up a statutory committee of this kind without including a schedule clearly setting out the committee’s role and functions is bound to lead to trouble.

Lord Etherton: I express my support for Amendment 27, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness have covered much of the ground that I wished to cover, and I agree with everything that they said.
Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty was not only binding on the UK before Brexit but—as the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, himself stated in a letter to Members on 13 May—the UK was one of the key EU members that lobbied for it, and it has not been suggested at any stage of the Bill that prior to Brexit the UK had any objection to the balancing factors in Article 13.
As I pointed out in Committee, the balancing factors mirror rights under the human rights convention. There is a powerful argument that the right to sporting and other recreational activity that are part of cultural traditions and regional heritage are protected by Article 8 of the convention as an aspect of the right to respect for private and family life. Like a number of other convention rights, it is a qualified right and is subject to interference if, among other things, it
“is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
None of those grounds has been identified by the Government as potentially applicable.
Most perplexing of all, however, is the Government’s failure to exclude religious rights from the purview of the sentience committee. This ground has been substantially covered by what my noble friend Lady Deech said. She referred to Article 9 of the convention, which expressly provides for freedom of thought, conscience or religion; that article expressly states that the right to manifest one’s religious belief is a right protected in practice and in religious observance.
The European Court of Human Rights, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said, has highlighted the importance of rights protected by Article 9 in a pluralist democratic society. Like Article 8, Article 9  of the convention confers a qualified right and is subject to many of the limitations that I have just listed with regard to Article 8. Again, none of those limitations has been suggested by the Government at any stage of the passage of this Bill.
Why, then, is the provision in this amendment, which simply seeks to incorporate the balancing factors in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty in the Bill, not accepted? As far as I can see and have heard, only two explanations have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Benyon. The first, which was stated most clearly, I think, in Committee, is that it is for the Government to decide on policy, and that in doing so they will take into account all relevant considerations.
The second explanation came today, when the Minister, when asked expressly why these balancing factors under Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty had been added to with bells, replied: “Well, we now have a sentience committee.” I say to the Minister that, with respect, that does not make much sense to me because all these balancing factors are matters of policy and are reserved to the Government. The three factors that are specified as balancing factors here are matters for the Government to decide, not the sentience committee, and it is therefore entirely appropriate for them to be in the Bill.
In fact, certainly in relation to religious slaughter of animals, the Government’s policy is to permit such slaughter. Jews and Muslims are exempt from the scope of domestic regulations concerning the stunning of animals, though I should add—so that there is no doubt about the matter—that the organisation with oversight of Jewish religious slaughter, Shechita UK, maintains that shechita conforms with the EU definition of stunning, as supported by scientific evidence.
Moreover, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in Committee, the Minister is recorded in Hansard as saying:
“this Bill is about the government policy-making process. It is not about some method of changing the slaughter of animals for religious belief. I want to make that absolutely clear.”—[Official Report, 20/7/21; col. GC 5.]
That is a statement about policy and the balancing factor of preserving religious rites.
I respectfully suggest that all this shows that there is no reason whatsoever why the Government should not exclude from the remit of the committee, as policy matters, customs relating to religious rites. Indeed, as proposed by Amendment 27, the same balancing factors that were accepted by the UK under the Lisbon treaty should be inserted in Clause 2.
That, however, is not the end of the matter. There is no statutory restriction to what the committee may consider, advise and make recommendations on. The committee could take it upon itself to consider matters that are subject to the balancing factors—and could reach a different view to that of the Government. If the Government decided not to implement the recommendations, on the basis that they were policy matters, not infringements of these balancing factors, it seems almost inevitable that somebody would institute a judicial review against the Government for failing to follow whatever the sentience committee had decided.
What would those proceedings be about? They would be about three matters. The first question is whether the committee had acted within its remit. Secondly, had the committee reached a decision consistent with scientific and other evidence? Thirdly, were the Government justified, taking into account all other considerations, in rejecting the recommendations and advice of the committee?
It is unrealistic to expect that leave would not be given to bring such proceedings, which would be expensive and time-consuming. All of this could be resolved in a way offered by the Lisbon treaty, by having these policy balancing factors in the Bill. This is also the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. The advisory committee—the sentience committee—may decide to take on a matter that currently falls within the exemption—such as religious slaughter—and come to a decision that is different to that accepted by the Government. If the Government wished to deviate from—not accept—those recommendations, judicial review would follow as night follows day. We should support this amendment.

Lord Trees: My Lords, I support Amendment 27, which carries my name. I have some difficulties with parts of it, which I will come to in a minute, but first I will make some remarks about medical research and the threat to it. The concern is very understandable, but in this case probably unwarranted. The question is not whether medical research will be exempted; there is very specific and substantial regulatory legislation in place to control medical research precisely. If there was a challenge as to whether the Government had considered the implications of their policy on medical research, they could answer, perfectly honestly, “Yes, we have the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, which is extremely detailed and requires persons involved in medical research to be licensed, the place in which that research is being carried out to be licensed, and each and every specific project, of a particular nature, to be subject to scrutiny and licensed”. I was a Home Office licence holder under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act for something like 25 years; one can argue very persuasively that due consideration and regard have been paid to medical research.
It is a great honour to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton, who exquisitely explained the reasons for incorporating these exemptions, which are included in Article 13. My noble friend Lady Deech knows that I differ with her in that I wish all animals to be stunned and rendered unconscious before slaughter. There is a huge weight of scientific evidence to support that. That is why it is illegal for most people, except those of particular religious persuasions—it is illegal for me as a veterinary surgeon—to cut the throat of a conscious animal without rendering it unconscious first.
However, I am a realist. I recognise all the points that my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton and my noble friend Lady Deech have made; religious freedoms are enshrined in our laws and internationally. That reflects current government policy to respect religious freedoms. I accept that point and am happy to support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I apologise to the House for having been detained in the Moses Room earlier in another debate. Much of what I might have said has been put far better by my colleagues who have signed this amendment, in the shape of my noble friend Lord Trees, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and my noble friend Lady Deech, who has been incredibly helpful. I thank them very much. I also found the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton very persuasive on the basic and essential point.
I remind the House of a question I put directly to the Minister in Committee, right at the end, about what happens next. He said:
“I do not want to create a feeding frenzy for lawyers by putting anything in legislation that will increase opportunities for judicial review or any other legal measure.”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 294.]
That is what set me thinking about whether or not, in the true construction, this provision increased or decreased the possibility for judicial review. We just heard from my noble and learned friend about that, and about how the European Convention on Human Rights would work. I will not rehearse all the arguments or restate what others have said but it is my settled view that, if we do not restore something that was the law of the land until midnight of 31 December last year and then stopped, there is a strong probability—particularly with the arrival of this committee—of increased action in judicial review and increased action under the ECHR. That seems to me to trip the very test the Minister set himself in Committee. That is why I put the amendment down again and why I strongly believe we need to accept it.
A very interesting point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I need to think about it, but in my bones I do not feel it is a problem and, obviously, nor do my colleagues. I am annoyed with myself for not having had the time to talk to colleagues on the Labour Front Bench to explain more carefully why this is not some sort of attempt to wreck anything but is a genuine point; we are trying to make sure that the Government can govern and are not dragged to the courts the whole time on what are, after all, a series of very emotive issues. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, about that in Committee.
My simple hope, having discussed this at length yesterday—I am very grateful for the Minister’s time—is that we can have a meeting after Report, and I very much hope the Labour Front Bench will be there, where we can discuss this carefully, including taking into account the good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and come to some sort of resolution. As I said, the advice from people who care about this and genuinely know about it is that the very test the Minister set himself in Committee would be tripped if we did not accept this amendment. I hope that, if he cannot accept it immediately today, we will not have a messy vote but agree that this is the one issue to be taken away and discussed between now and Third Reading.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I support very much my noble friend Lord Marland in his amendment, both the principles behind it and its detail, and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech,  which was extremely well argued by her and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Lord, Lord Trees—modestly—and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
It strikes me that the Government have got themselves in a bit of a muddle on all this. The more I have listened to noble Lords behind me who obviously think the Government have got it wrong, the more I wonder why they are legislating in this way. If he had wished to do so, could the Secretary of State not simply have set up a committee by declaration, to do everything the Government want it to and try out some of these extremely complicated and difficult issues which have been raised not just today but in Committee? I feel it would have been a much better way to progress thinking and policy on this Bill and would not have made the sort of mistakes which I have a horrible feeling the Government are heading into by putting forward primary legislation in this manner, when we all know that changing primary legislation is incredibly difficult.
I hope my noble friend the Minister has listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who made a very fair offer of discussion on this extremely complicated policy matter, with the aim of coming forward with some rationally thought through amendments at Third Reading, which I would very much support.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Can I just add to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s remarks? The Government certainly have the capacity to create this committee, but why are they bothering to create a new one? I raised this in Committee and was told, “Oh no; the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee are doing two totally different things.” If you took that outside and asked people in the street, “Do you think there’s an enormous difference between animal welfare and animal sentience?”, they would slightly wonder what you were talking about. It is extraordinary that, as a Conservative Government, we did not take a well-respected committee—the Animal Welfare Committee—and extend its remit to include animal sentience. Surely that would have been the most sensible, straightforward way, without creating new bureaucracy, as well as massive expense and giving it a statutory basis.
Let us consider what this committee will do. We are told that it will be independent, so it can produce reports on anything that it wants. My noble friend Lady Fookes says that it cannot produce a report on the whole question of ritual slaughter, basically because that has already been taken care of in legislation. Is that true? If the committee is completely independent, presumably it can produce a report on anything that it wants. It could put pressure on the Government to say, “Actually, the existing legislation that covers ritual slaughter is inadequate, therefore something should be done about it.” This committee is either independent or it is not. Presumably, it can produce a report on the poisoning of rats. They are sentient creatures—the Bill covers both animals in the wild and domestic animals. Their poisoning is not very pleasant in the absence of terriers which, let us face it, kill rats rather  more cleanly and humanely than any other way. Nowadays they invariably get poisoned; presumably, a report could be produced on that. We are creating a monster here and in the long term we will live to regret it.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, can I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has just said? I remind those in the House who have not looked closely at the terms of reference of the relationship that is anticipated between this new committee and the excellent existing Animal Welfare Committee. They are to have a joint secretariat with Defra, a joint website, a joint point of contact and the same Defra budget. Both will give views and advice about the effects on animal welfare of policy decisions, including prospective future policy and policy currently being formulated, and they will consult one another. The same people can be members of both committees and on occasions give joint advice and attend one another’s meetings. I repeat: I still do not understand why, with a powerful and excellent committee already in existence, we are spending time on the Bill in this House today.

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened with care to what has been said and find the arguments convincing. However, I am slightly concerned about the proposition put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and supported by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. As I understand the procedure now, if the Minister agrees to such a meeting but then decides to do nothing, we can do nothing at Third Reading. I would like clarification that we could not bring forward an amendment at Third Reading unless there was an indication from the Government today that it would be accepted. I think that is the new procedure.
I have two questions for my noble friend that are relevant. Does he agree with the situation north of the border and the attitude taken by NatureScot that:
“The death of an animal, at an individual level, is not a welfare issue but the manner in which an animal dies is”?
If he agrees with that, will he give an instruction to the committee to follow that same principle? Does he also agree with the thoughts of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in New Zealand, which distinguishes between societal ethical values and public opinion? Again, if he agrees with that animal sentience committee’s thoughts, would he give the same instruction to the committee that he proposes to set up?

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, this small group of amendments, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, deals with the work of the animal sentience committee and touches on the issue of religious rites in Amendment 27, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. It is obvious from the contributions made that everybody feels very passionately about this.
Medical science is important and should be confirmed wherever possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, lots of safeguards around licensing of medical science are already in place. There is obviously a need to ensure that those for whom religious rites are an important part of their lifestyle are respected, as set out in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. Despite the fact  that this was before Brexit, I believe the Government should and do respect this right, upholding the values of those for whom the method of slaughter of those animals which form part of their staple diet is protected.
Amendment 48, which has not had a huge amount of debate this evening, is consequential on Amendment 2 and sets out the detail of the way in which the committee will be constituted and work. The noble Lord, Lord Marland, has just set out a bit about that and there is detail in the amendment. However, I am afraid I do not agree with either him or the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on parts of the amendment.
Limiting the term of office to four years could lead to a loss of expertise on the committee, especially if all members were appointed at the same time—which could happen, since it will be a new committee—and, therefore, rotated off at the same time. Further, I find the list of who may not sit on the committee very restrictive. It could lead to someone with the necessary expertise and knowledge being excluded from being a committee member. However, I agree with this amendment in that there should be transparency and independence. That is the direct opposite of the first group of amendments, which sought to fetter the committee’s independence.
The detail in Amendment 48 is extensive. However, the draft terms of reference document is also comprehensive and indicates that Defra has thought carefully about how the committee is to be constructed and how it will carry out its functions. On balance, I am inclined to go with the Defra guidance on this issue but will be interested in what the Minister has to say on this subject and on the knotty issues around Amendment 27.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, I will talk first about the first part of Amendment 2, which looks at committee remit and policy. That has not really been discussed much in this debate so far. I draw attention to the terms of reference, because they include a lot of information about the role of the committee and policy. I put on record that we welcome a number of formal recognitions that the committee will have. It will: consider positive effects on animals as sentient beings in the policy-making process; report on any policy for which UK Government Ministers are responsible; examine policy decision-making by previous Governments where this has a significant bearing on ongoing policy-making. It is also important that the selection of the policy decisions it will choose to scrutinise will lie within the committee. I will make a final point on policy before moving on. I draw attention to the fact that it is not for the committee to reach a value judgment on whether a given policy decision balanced the welfare of animals with other matters of public interest.
On Amendment 48, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has pretty well covered all the areas I wish to draw attention to, so I will move on. The second part of Amendment 2 and Amendment 27 refer to having regard to cultural and religious considerations, as we have heard. Clearly, this is extremely important; the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in particular, demonstrated that passionately in her speech. As we have seen, Amendment 27 seeks to sustain an aspect  of the sentience responsibility that applied when we were EU members: the derogation to Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which exempts cultural practices from animal welfare considerations.
Again, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that this derogation was negotiated during the Lisbon treaty by a very small number of EU Governments particularly looking to preserve practices such as bullfighting. I believe that we now have the freedom to widen our ambitions for animal welfare while still respecting cultural and religious practices. Indeed, the restrictions in Article 13 have frequently been cited as one of the key flaws in EU sentience policy that post-Brexit UK sentience policy can improve on. In fact, the then Secretary of State at Defra Michael Gove said in 2017:
“The current EU instrument—Article 13—has not delivered the progress we want to see. It does not have direct effect in law—in practice its effect is very unclear and it has failed to prevent practices across the EU which are cruel and painful to animals.”
Article 13 has not stopped any of those practices, but leaving the EU gives us the chance to do much better. This matter was discussed at length in Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, made some good points about existing legislation. In Committee, in response to noble Lords’ concerns, many of which were exactly the same as those expressed today, the Minister assured us that any Minister would have to take into account the wider considerations of cultural and religious organisations and form views in accordance with them. I hope that he can similarly reassure noble Lords today.
Finally, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that I am always happy to meet to discuss policy and legislation with anybody.

Lord Benyon: I start by wishing my noble friend Lord Mancroft a speedy recovery, and I am sorry he is not here. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marland for moving his amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others for speaking to it.
The amendment seeks to clarify the role and detail of the animal sentience committee. I reassure my noble friend Lord Marland and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the Bill already makes it absolutely clear that the only role of the committee is to provide an assessment of the extent to which policy decision-making has considered whether a policy may
“have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
We are sure that the Bill already makes it clear that the committee will not be authorised to stray into making value judgments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, just said, on how well a given policy decision balanced the welfare of animals with other matters of public interest. There is no need to specify explicitly in the Bill that it is for Ministers to take other public considerations into account when formulating and implementing policy, because this requirement applies as a matter of course.
Amendment 48 concerns the structure of the committee, criteria for appointments to it and how it is to operate. My noble friend’s amendment raises a number of points about the design of the committee, which I will address in turn. I agree with him about the optimal size of the committee. That is why we have already made it clear that there will be eight to 12 members, working part-time. We want the committee to have everything it needs to do its job well, and its members will be its most important asset. We are committed to ensuring that the committee is large enough to have a suitable breadth of expertise among its members, while not making it so large as to be unwieldy. Of course, the committee will always be able to consult outside experts when needed. Defra’s hosting allows it to be affiliated to the animal welfare centre of expertise and, as I have said, this means there will be enhanced liaison and co-operation between experts.
The committee has the statutory power to issue reports giving its opinion on whether, or to what extent, the Government are having, or have had, all due regard to the ways in which a policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The Bill already places a legal duty on Ministers to respond to the committee’s reports within three months of their publication. Once established, it will be for the committee to determine how it fulfils its statutory functions. The draft terms of reference set out how we expect it to work.
Our approach strikes the right balance between offering clarity about the committee’s role and powers in legislation and allowing it sufficient flexibility. It provides flexibility to update the terms of reference when needed without the need to take up parliamentary time unnecessarily. Our other animal welfare expert committees, including the Animal Welfare Committee and the Zoos Expert Committee, have provided valuable advice to the Government for years without the need to set out their terms of reference in legislation.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 27 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I am grateful to him for his explanation and the conversations we have had about this. This amendment would require the animal sentience committee to have regard to certain other matters of public interest, such as cultural traditions. It bears repeating that the purpose of the committee is not to make value judgments on the weight that animal welfare should be given in relation to other matters of public interest. That is for Ministers, who are rightly held to account in Parliament. I listened very closely to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. He is obviously well practised in the law and someone to whom I defer, but the balancing factor that existed in European legislation now lies with Ministers. They have the right to say, “We hear what the committee says, but we are going to take other factors into account”, and they could be exactly the concerns voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
The reference to certain factors in Article 13 reflects the particular legal order of the European Union, with its complex division of Union and member state competence. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to this. There is simply no need to make reference to  the same factors in the Bill. The committee would have to make a value judgment on what it is or is not, and that is not the job of the committee and the Bill does not give the committee such powers. Ministers are responsible for determining the weight to be given to competing considerations when formulating policy in accordance with the rule of law. Nothing in the Bill will affect their ability to do so in the future. The Bill will not require Ministers to give greater weight to animal welfare considerations over other considerations in the public interest.
My noble friend Lord Marland referred to this somehow damaging the livelihoods of fishermen or farmers. It absolutely will not. Ministers are determined to make sure that there are good livelihoods for fishermen and farmers. We listen to noble Lords, and the Bill has been the subject of detailed consideration in this House and outside it. I tried to listen to as many noble Lords giving as many opinions on this as possible. I say to my noble friend absolutely clearly that the Bill does not set standards. I repeat for the third time that it does not make a value judgment. If farmers, fishermen or any other practitioner of rural or marine employment or livelihood are conforming to the norms and good behaviours that lie within their professional activity, they have nothing to fear.
I have never said in this House, in Committee or wherever that the Bill somehow came about as a result of social media. We are concerned about limiting the chance of the legal feeding frenzy that I referred to in Committee. That is why there are only two duties on Ministers: first, to create the committee, and secondly, for Ministers in the departments to which the committee reports to provide an answer within a reasonable period. We will come on to talk about that on a government amendment later.
I say to my noble friend that when I came into Defra in the coalition Government in 2010 there were 93 arm’s-length bodies. When I left in 2013, there were around 33. I absolutely believe in streamlining government wherever possible, but I also believe in good policy, and Ministers are not experts. They require the right advice and the right support at any time.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that I absolutely understand her concerns and those that were so eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, in Committee. However, the rights that she talks about are not going to be decided by the animal sentience committee; they will remain within the policy-making of this and future Governments and it will be the job of Ministers, scrutinised by Parliament, to change any of those forms of slaughter or access to the measures that are of concern to her.
I state clearly for the record that the Bill is about the government policy-making process. It does not change existing law or impose any new restrictions on individuals or businesses. The Government would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter, but we respect the rights of members of the Muslim and Jewish communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. That is the Government’s policy and it will remain so.
I am concerned that this matter is resolved today. The Government will not be moving any further on this issue or have any more to say ahead of Third  Reading. If the noble Earl wishes to test the opinion of the House, it is absolutely his right to do so, but I say to him, regarding the offer of a meeting involving the Front Benches and my officials to try to resolve this issue, that this is only half the process of this Bill; there is of course the other place for it to go to. I will certainly work with his expertise and the concerns that he and others have brought to try to find a way forward, but I want to resolve this matter today. I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Howard of Lympne: My noble friend repeatedly emphasised during the course of his reply that the decision on these matters would be made by Ministers, but he will know, as we all do, that the decisions of Ministers are subject to judicial review. We have heard from no less an authority than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that, without the language contained in Amendment 27 in particular, the risk of judicial review of those decisions by Ministers is increased, not reduced. What is my noble friend’s answer to that point?

Lord Benyon: My learned noble friend will know that there will be attempts to judicially review Governments at every stage of a process of policy, particularly in areas that are emotive and that carry great weights of public opinion in one way or the other. The question is not whether judicial review will be attempted but whether it will be successful. Last week Defra won a court case—as we do many times—against an attempt to take things to judicial review because the judge said it was not permissible to take the matter any further. That is why we have strictly limited the duties on Ministers that lie behind the Bill to only two areas. So I am not saying at all that there will not be attempts to judicially review, but I hope I can convince my noble friend that those attempts will not be successful because we have been so careful to limit the scope of the Bill.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Would the attempt at judicial review not be more likely to be successful if there had been a report from the animal sentience committee saying that there was something illegal about ritual slaughter?

Lord Benyon: With respect to my noble friend, no. As long as the Minister has set out that, “We have received this report and here is our response; we hear what you say but there are wider cultural and religious factors that I have to consider in taking my decision”, that will be absolutely within the terms of this legislation and will not be able to be successfully judicially reviewed.

Lord Marland: My Lords, I thank those who have spoken so eloquently, including those who have supported my amendments.
The Government really are in a mess on this subject. They cannot defend the reason for the committee. They do not know who is actually running these decisions—whether it is Ministers or the Government. Most people, once torpedoed beneath the bows by the very eloquent and eminent noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would have given up and said  yes, especially when followed by my noble friend Lord Howard, who underlined the terrible mess that the Government are in. The very fact that Defra has defended itself from legal disputes shows us the onslaught that is going to happen. If that were not enough, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made a brilliant intervention showing that committees are already in place to help them.
We on our Benches want to help the Government, not to hinder them—we want to make this better for them. But I fear they have lit a long fuse that is going to explode in our faces in five to 10 years’ time, and there will be nothing that we can do about it. It will traipse through the courts, there will be no defence to it and all the warnings that we have given will have been to no avail.
I am a loyal member of our party, so I am not going to invite the opinion of the House, but I sense that there is a strength of opinion in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, so I would certainly not want to interfere on any decision that she might make on her amendments—but I hereby withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 3

Lord Robathan: Moved by Lord Robathan
3: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2)

Lord Robathan: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I have been asked to introduce this amendment. I think he is either on his sick bed or on a horse; I am not quite sure which.
Before I start, I will pay tribute to the Minister. He is making a pretty good fist of what is almost indefensible. I congratulate him but gently remind him that, although this may not be the result of social media, if memory serves me right he told us in Committee that, while still a Member of the House of Commons, he had had something like 200 messages—probably mostly from Liberal Democrat opponents—saying that the Government had to introduce an animal sentience Bill. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he told me that.
Amendment 3 and other amendments wish to introduce some clarity regarding the Government’s intentions about appointments to the committee and the committee’s own role in those appointments. For instance, should the Secretary of State appoint people; if so, what qualifications should they have and for how long should they be appointed; and, to quote from subsection (3), what “terms” will determine the appointments? I know my noble friend Lady McIntosh, a fellow “extremist right-winger”, will speak on later amendments on this subject.
One of the concerns expressed repeatedly as the Bill has made progress is the lack of clarity about the role of the committee, how members will be appointed and how the committee will operate. In response, the Minister agreed to publish the draft terms of reference, which has now been done, but the draft terms provide little additional clarity, and there is little if anything binding  current or future Ministers. Indeed, the shortcomings of the terms of reference seem to confirm the concerns expressed by noble Lords at earlier stages. The terms indicate the establishment of this animal welfare centre of expertise, bringing together the various animal welfare advisory committees already in existence, as well as the new committee. This seems to be a recognition of the potential overlap and conflict between the various committees yet, unlike other committees, the sentience committee will enjoy statutory status and a reporting function to Parliament.
Perhaps most concerning is the ongoing lack of clarity as to whether the committee will be looking at and advising on the process of making and implementing policy, or indeed of policy itself. The terms of reference state that once established, it will be for the committee to formally ratify its objectives and responsibilities. As a committee established by statute, its objectives and responsibilities should be found in the establishing Act of Parliament, which we are discussing now. It should not be for the committee to ratify its “objectives and responsibilities”. These amendments, together with proposed new Schedule 1, seek to give some clarity and certainty where this is currently lacking.
I do not wish to repeat things that have already been said or detain the House unnecessarily, but I believe that the terms of reference leave unresolved a great many issues.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: I congratulate my noble friend Lord Robathan on stepping into the breach at such short notice and so eloquently moving Amendment 3. I will speak to Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10 in my name, and I associate myself with earlier comments on the general thrust of this Bill put by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, in moving his Amendment 2 in the earlier group.
I share the general concern of those who are sceptical about the need for this Bill. I see it as a further onslaught on farming and livestock producers, particularly those in the uplands. I yield to no one in my praise and admiration for the way they go out in all weathers to produce lambs and suckler cattle at this time of year and, especially, in the spring. We are conscious of the fact that, in the north-east of England, there are some 12,000 people without electricity; presumably, the farmers are having to milk the cows by hand, which, of course, takes a lot longer than would normally be the case by other means.
As I mentioned earlier, I would prefer that we keep to the basics of the manifesto. I have now had a chance to reacquaint myself with Article 13, which states:
“In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.”
This neatly makes the case for the main thrust of my argument—the reason why Clause 1 is not required is that it is adequately covered by Article 13. I look forward to hearing a strong argument and reassurance from my noble friend the Minister as to why that should not be the case.
I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Marland; it would seem that the Government are drifting away from supporting farming, maintaining self-sufficiency in our food production and our high standards of food production. However, through this Bill, the subsequent regulations and, no doubt, the advice of the committee being set up by Clause 1, we are actually making life much more difficult, in particular for livestock producers. I put on record my regret for that, particularly with respect to tenant farmers—and 48% of farmers in north Yorkshire fall into that category.
In speaking specifically to my Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10, I refer to the earlier arguments put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in private practice on what constitutes “an act” for the purpose of judicial review. I humbly submit to my noble friend the Minister that the animal sentience committee’s terms of reference—a final draft of which was sent to us on 17 November 2021—will indeed constitute an act that would be justiciable as regards a judicial review. Is there a strong reason why that would not be the case?
In Committee, when I moved similar amendments, I did not obtain the reassurances from the Minister that I sought at that stage. He argued that he did not want to put on the face of the Bill the length of time for an appointment. I argue in my Amendment 4 that appointments under Clause 1 should be
“for a period of three years”.
I argue in Amendment 6:
“The membership of the Committee is to include, amongst others … a veterinary surgeon; … an active farmer or person with knowledge of livestock production or land management; and … a person with knowledge of slaughterhouses”.
Abattoirs are, if you like, the final nail in the coffin for the animal, which is sent on its way. That is my plea for more detail in the Bill.
Equally, I have set out perhaps greater detail in Amendment 8. I lifted this text from an earlier Bill—it might have been the Trade Bill, now the Trade Act, with respect to the Trade Remedies Authority. I forget which Bill it was, but I am grateful for the help that I received from the Public Bill Office in drafting the amendment. In desperation, I have also retabled Amendment 10 to leave out Clause 1 in case I do not get satisfaction and reassurance from the Minister this evening.
The Minister’s argument is flawed. If he does not wish the detail to be on the face of the Bill since this would constitute an act that is justiciable in terms of a judicial review, I argue that it was equally inappropriate to put in his letter to us of 17 November, as well as in a separate printout of the terms of reference, what the remit and constitution of the committee would be. Even though it is a separate document, that is as justiciable as it would be if it were on the face of the Bill.
I am extremely proud to have been a student of constitutional law at Edinburgh University under the excellent tutelage of Professor JDB Mitchell, who was at the time a leading expert in administrative law. I keep his book in the kitchen. My husband sometimes thinks that I am confusing administrative law theory with my recipes, which is why I often leave the cooking  to him. A more up-to-date authority that I turn to is the Public Law Project, which sets out, for example, what can be challenged. It says:
“Decisions, acts, and failures to act by public bodies exercising their public functions are all potentially challengeable by judicial review.”
I must be simple in not being able to follow my noble friend’s argument but, to be absolutely clear, why is it not acceptable to put in the Bill the level of detail that I am seeking, but acceptable to put it in the supplementary documents? These are easier to amend but, in my view, because they constitute an administrative act, they will be equally justiciable.
I end with a last request to understand why, when just about every other Bill introduced by the Government since 2017 has waxed lyrical as to the composition and remit of the committee it set up, that is deemed not to be subject to judicial review, yet this is subject to judicial review. With those few remarks, I look forward very much to receiving reassurances from my noble friend the Minister.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments seeking to specify the membership of the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, have set out the rationale for their amendments and there are some contradictions. Amendments 3 and 5 would remove the Secretary of State from the process altogether, whereas Amendment 8 would leave the power to appoint with the Secretary of State. Amendment 6 would ensure that certain levels of expertise were included in the committee’s membership.
I agree that certain skills and level of expertise are important, and can see immediately from the list that a single person can have more than one skill level and fulfil more than one function. For instance, the law currently requires that a veterinary surgeon must be present in a slaughterhouse. Therefore, he or she will have knowledge of the way a slaughterhouse operates.
However, whether such people will have time to sit on the animal sentience committee remains to be seen. A veterinary surgeon who no longer works in a slaughterhouse might do, depending on their current workload, but setting the membership in legislation could be something of a millstone around the neck of the chair or the Secretary of State, whoever is recruiting the membership.
The list of what the animal sentience committee can and cannot do under the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is extensive and somewhat cumbersome. I believe it could be streamlined. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response to these issues.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere: My Lords, this block of amendments goes to the heart of what is wrong with the proposal. We all have an idea of who “the expert” is and what kind of person will give us the answers we want, whether that is a vet, someone banned from being a member of an animal rights movement, or whatever. The idea that there is some disinterested, impartial, patriotic expert who can somehow rise above the rest of us and be the only objective person is one of the most pernicious ideas in modern  politics. We all have our opinions and starting assumptions, the “expert” more than anybody, if by “expert” we mean someone has spent his or her career in one field. They are the last person to whom we should contract out our decisions as a parliamentary assembly.
I totally understand that the Minister will want some flexibility, but a later amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising proposes a sunset clause. Maybe we could see whether the committee works out with the experts as proposed in the way the Minister assures us. If it does there will be no problem, and, if not, we will have another go at it. Perhaps that would be the wise amendment for the Government to accept.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, the amendments in this group all refer to the make-up of the membership of the committee and how it is appointed. Noble Lords who were with us in Committee may remember that when we debated membership of the committee, a number of us, including me, put forward amendments about its make-up and who should be on it. By the end of that debate, I felt that it had become absurd to prescribe exactly what kind of expert we should have and what area they should come from, because by the time we had finished it looked like the animal sentience committee would have a membership of around 170. We have to be practical and make sure we get the right kind of people on the committee without being specific in the Bill about exactly what job or experience they should have, because where do you end? At what point do you draw the line?
So it is important that within the terms of reference we have a clear understanding of what the committee’s role is; that is, to underpin and enhance a fundamental constitutional principle—namely, ministerial accountability. It is also important that the terms of reference make it clear that the committee is expected to operate and promote a culture of openness. It is therefore important that we have the right and proper people on it.
I am sure the Minister will point it out when he speaks, but the terms of reference clearly state that appointees will be experts—I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, is of the same opinion as Michael Gove that, we “have had enough of experts”, but there we are. Appointees will be experts with the appropriate experience relating to policy decision-making and the welfare of animals and the Secretary of State may seek to promote a diversity of expertise—which is important, as we need a proper diversity of expertise—so that the committee can offer high-quality advice on policy decision-making and its animal welfare implications.
From my perspective, and that of these Benches, the concerns that we raised in Committee about what the committee should look like and who should be appointed as a member have been answered by the terms of reference, and we are happy with what we see in that document.

Lord Benyon: I thank noble Lords for their valuable scrutiny of the Bill, and the envisaged structure and operation of the animal sentience committee. I will address the points raised in turn.
I start with Amendments 3 and 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft and ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Robathan, concerning the membership of the committee. These amendments would limit the power of the Defra Secretary of State in appointing members to the committee. We believe that the Defra Secretary of State is very well placed to be responsible for those appointments.
Defra has a long track record of recruiting expert advisers to give balanced, reasonable advice on animal welfare issues. Appointments will be decided in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments, and this is important. The aim of the code is to ensure the best applicants are appointed. Anybody suitably qualified and wishing to apply would need to be assessed alongside other candidates according to a rigorous selection procedure. Applicants would, in line with best practice, be required to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the recruitment panel. Your Lordships can be reassured that the process of recruitment of members to the committee will be rigorous and that members will be chosen on the merits of their expertise. This is what is needed for the committee to perform its role.
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her Amendment 4, concerning term limits for members of the committee. Before I get into the meat of her point, I will say that our commitment to supporting farmers is total. I ask her to read, if she has not already, a copy of the speech made by the Secretary of State on Thursday; it sets out our commitment to support farming and farmers, particularly in the upland areas that I know I know are dear to her.
I agree with my noble friend that the committee should benefit from fresh thinking and new perspectives, but this should be balanced against the risk of unnecessary churn and loss of talent. Setting inflexible term limits could prove disruptive to the committee’s work. It would be regrettable if a member’s term ended mid-report, for example.
Additionally, we should allow some room for manoeuvre in exceptional circumstances; for example, the ongoing pandemic. This was a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who may not have been referring to the pandemic, but her point was right. The pandemic disrupted recruitment to several organisations, and I would not want to take away the ability of the Secretary of State to apply short extensions to members’ terms if necessary.
We have sought to strike a sensible balance in the approach outlined in the draft terms of reference—I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her points about that. Members would, in general, be appointed for terms of four years, renewable once. This is the standard approach for public appointments of this nature. These are the same terms on which we appoint members of other animal welfare expert bodies such as the Animal Welfare Committee and the Zoos Expert Committee. It is tried and tested.
Of course, there will be safeguards. As set out in the terms of reference, the Secretary of State reserves the right to terminate appointments if he or she considers that a committee member’s performance, attendance or conduct has been unsatisfactory, or if there is a   conflict of interest which threatens the integrity of the committee. I hope my noble friend will agree that our proposed approach strikes the right balance.
I turn to Amendment 6, also in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, concerning the membership of the committee. I agree with my noble friend that vets and livestock farmers have a lot to contribute when considering animal welfare. We recognise the importance of having experts with hands-on experience of working with animals on the committee. Anyone who is an expert in the fields of animal behaviour, animal welfare, neurophysiology, veterinary science, law and public administration who wished to apply would be assessed alongside other candidates via a rigorous selection procedure based on fair and open competition. We want to ensure that the committee benefits from a diversity of expertise, and we hope to encourage applications from a wide range of specialists.
That is one reason why we have sought to avoid being too prescriptive about the make-up of the committee, be that in the Bill or in the draft terms of reference. Also, the expertise required by the committee may change from time to time as the scientific understanding of the welfare needs of animals continues to evolve. It is important that the Bill leaves scope to adjust the committee’s membership as required. It is also important to avoid creating requirements in the Bill that are so specific that they lead to appropriate candidates being unable to fulfil the criteria. For these reasons, I would prefer an approach that encourages the recruitment of a diverse range of experts to the committee, rather than setting out too-rigid specifications in statute.
I turn to another amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, Amendment 8, concerning the governance and operation of the committee. When we last discussed this amendment, my noble friend stressed that it is
“intended to be entirely helpful”,—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 298.]
and I am grateful for the constructive suggestions that she has offered. The draft terms of reference reflect many of the points raised in the amendment. As I have said, they make provision for the Secretary of State to remove underperforming members, and they also propose term lengths and performance management procedures.
My noble friend has said that her amendment is based on the text used in the Trade Act to describe the Trade Remedies Authority. I would argue that the committee’s role and remit is very different from the authority’s, and so provisions appropriate to the latter are not necessarily suitable for this committee. For example, there is no need to create executive and non-executive classes of membership for the committee. It will be the members themselves who prepare reports, with assistance from the committee’s secretariat. There is little need to codify any delegation of functions. In the committee’s case, it is the Secretary of State who should ultimately be responsible for its good governance and effective recruitment. The draft terms of reference make this responsibility clear. I would be reluctant to dilute this accountability by delegating such responsibilities as the amendment proposes.
We have proposed an approach that makes Ministers accountable for ensuring the committee is run well, while avoiding excessive red tape. We want a timely, targeted and proportionate accountability mechanism. This requires the committee to have sufficient confidence and independence to offer meaningful scrutiny, but without conferring legal powers and responsibilities on it which are not appropriate for a body of this size and remit.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 10, also in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I understand that my noble friend and other Peers have queries regarding the need for such a committee and suggest its functions could be subsumed into the Animal Welfare Committee—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, earlier. The two committees have different roles. The animal sentience committee needs to be established in statute to provide for effective parliamentary accountability. The Animal Welfare Committee operates very effectively as a non-statutory body that provides expert advice on specific issues set out in remits issued by the Government. While both committees hold expertise in a similar area, their roles are distinct. For the legislation to require Ministers to publish a written response to a report by the committee, and to lay the response before Parliament, the committee must be referred to in the Bill. It is on this basis that the committee has a legal persona, and this role could not be undertaken by a completely non-statutory body such as the Animal Welfare Committee.
The animal sentience committee and the Animal Welfare Committee will be affiliates sitting within the animal welfare centre of excellence. We expect that, within the centre, the committee will have a particularly close working relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee. The two committees may refer issues to each other as required. However, the function to issue reports on how well central government policy decisions have taken the needs of sentient animals into account can be undertaken only by the animal sentience committee, in accordance with the parameters set out in the Bill.
I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that they will feel content not to press their amendments.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he has not explained why he argued so vigorously in Committee that, if the details that are now in the terms of reference appeared in the Bill, they might be subject to judicial review. His view must be that, because they are in the terms of reference, they are not subject to judicial review. In my view, they constitute an administrative act, so how is he going to get round this and avoid judicial reviews?

Lord Benyon: If, as my noble friend suggests, we put details in the Bill that incorporated the types of people who had to be on the committee, and then if, for example, someone were off sick or had not been appointed or for whatever reason was not available at the point at which the committee wrote a report, that would leave the Government open to a successful judicial review. These are matters that we think sit absolutely in accordance with other committees that are set up across government, where the terms of  reference are amendable without having to go back to legislation. This is a fast-moving area of policy and, in future, we may feel, after thinking about it for a while, that the terms of reference need to be amended. This allows, in an entirely normal way, the Secretary of State to make those amendments in consultation with others. I do not think that it would be wise to put it in the Bill because that would increase the risk of judicial review.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: I have two questions for my noble friend before he sits down. Does he accept that the Animal Welfare Committee could have been put on a statutory basis and its remit expanded to take in animal sentience? Secondly, if there were a change in Government after the next election, could a Labour Secretary of State put totally new people on the sentience committee?

Lord Benyon: Let us deal with the second question first, then I will see if I can remember the first. A future Government can bring in legislation, if they have a big enough majority to get it through, to do anything they like within the law. We are a sovereign nation and they could take those decisions—indeed, they could populate arm’s-length bodies and expert committees with who they like.
On the first question, no we could not, because the Animal Welfare Committee has a different remit. For starters, it is a UK-wide committee and it is not a creature of statute; it gives expert advice as and when required. We wanted to have a body that is a creature of statute, so that there is parliamentary accountability in the process of policy-making.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, for one glorious moment I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was going to support the amendment that I moved—she disappointed me, but then what do you expect?
I do not wish to detain my noble friend the Minister any longer. I will let him off the agony and let him go and have some dinner. Notwithstanding the fact that I remain convinced that there is very little clarity either in the Bill or the terms of reference, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 3 withdrawn.
Amendments 4 to 6 not moved.
Sitting suspended.

Health and Social Care
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Friday 3 December.
“Madam Deputy Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on the work we are doing to keep our country safe this winter. Today, we have published our health and social care approach to winter. This shows the preparations we are making so  that health and social care services remain resilient, joined up and available to patients over the coming months, and it sets out what actions the public can take. As this plan shows, we are also doing everything in our power to give our NHS what it needs and keep it standing strong this winter, including through our plans to recruit more staff, give greater support to the NHS workforce and bolster capacity across urgent and emergency care. For example, the NHS has given ambulance trusts an extra £55 million to boost staff numbers this winter; there is nearly half a billion pounds to fund an enhanced discharge programme; and we have measures to reduce pressure on accident and emergency departments, reduce waiting times and improve patient flow.
This document comes ahead of a critical winter for our NHS. We face the challenge of fighting Covid-19, and the new omicron variant, along with the other challenges, such as flu, that winter can bring. We are doing everything we can to strengthen our vital defences. One of our main defences is, of course, our vaccination programmes, and we are expanding our booster programme, which hit the milestone of 19 million doses yesterday, along with delivering the largest flu vaccination programme in UK history. Yesterday, we announced how we will be buying a total of 114 million additional Pfizer and Moderna doses for 2022 and 2023, which will future-proof our Great British vaccination effort and make sure we can protect even more people in the years ahead. Another defence is antivirals, and it was fantastic news that yesterday another Covid-19 treatment was approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, after it was found to be safe and effective at reducing the risk of hospitalisation and death in people with mild to moderate Covid-19 infection.
Just as we tackle the virus, we are also tackling what the virus has brought with it. The pandemic has put unprecedented pressure on the NHS and led to a backlog for elective care. To fix this, the NHS needs to be able to offer more appointments, operations and treatments, and we need to adopt new, innovative ways of working so patients keep getting the best possible care. We are determined to maximise the capacity of the NHS to keep elective services going over the winter months so that people can keep getting routine treatments such as hip surgery and diagnostic tests.
Today, I am pleased to update the House on the £700 million fund that we announced in September for elective recovery. This transformative funding, which is being split across all regions in England, will support 785 schemes across 187 hospital trusts. It will help reduce waiting times for patients by providing more operating theatres and beds, and greater capacity for our NHS. Today, we have published the regional breakdown for this funding, which was allocated on a fair basis, according to weighted population, to make sure there was an equitable spread across the country. This includes £112 million for the north-east and Yorkshire, £131 million for the Midlands and £97 million for the north-west. At least £330 million will be invested in the NHS estate and a further £250 million will be spent on digital initiatives that aid elective recovery. Over £600 million from this fund has already been committed to approved bids, such as for new wards at  University Hospitals Birmingham, a new South Mersey elective hub and a new, modular unit in Castle Hill Hospital in Hull.
This investment will have a huge impact, and this is the beginning not the end of our investment, as we are continuing to identify and assess submitted bids for investment in the remainder of this financial year. It is part of £5.4 billion that we have announced to support the NHS response to the pandemic in the second half of the year and it builds on the work done ahead of last winter, where we invested £450 million to upgrade A&E facilities in over 120 separate trusts, to boost capacity. This is a Government who back the NHS. Ahead of what will be a testing winter, we are putting everything behind our health and care services, so everyone can access the services they need when they need them.
I conclude by urging everyone to play their part this winter by taking simple steps that can help our NHS. People should get the jabs they need for flu and Covid-19 when the time comes and should follow the rules that we have put in place. If they do that, we can protect not only the NHS but the progress that we have all made. I commend the Statement to the House.”

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I first declare my interest as a serving non-executive director on a local hospital board, which is in the register.
I thank the Minister for the Statement from Friday concerning the winter and the NHS. If the House will indulge me for a moment, I put on record what a pleasure and privilege it has been over these years to have had my honourable friend Jon Ashworth, former Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as my boss. I welcome Wes Streeting MP to that position; his huge talent will challenge the health team in the Commons and keep them on their toes, I have no doubt, and I look forward to it.
Today, the Daily Telegraph carried a story saying that 10,000 hospital beds were taken up by patients waiting for home care. NHS Providers has done some research and warned that those beds are mostly currently occupied by elderly people who are medically fit to be discharged, but no care is available to look after them at home. The chief executive, Chris Hopson, said that hospitals are now having to deploy their own staff to take on care duties in the community in order to free up hospital beds.
The lack of social care surely lies at the heart of whether the NHS can cope with the winter pressures, deal with ambulances stacking up, tackle the backlog and deal with whatever Covid, and particularly the new variant, may throw at it. When Professor Stephen Powis, NHS National Medical Director, said:
“NHS staff have pulled out all the stops since the beginning of the pandemic, treating more than half a million Covid patients, while continuing to perform millions of checks, tests and treatments for non-Covid reasons”,
he could have added that they are exhausted and need our support and that of the Government to move forward.
We need to add in the fact that about one in 60 people in private households in England had Covid in the week to 27 November—up from one in 65 the  previous week, according to the Office for National Statistics. One in 60 is the equivalent of almost 900,000 people. Although it is true that, thankfully, fewer people are hospitalised and even fewer are in ICU, that is still a significant number. But this rate of infection, with the new variant possibly being even more infectious, means that, apart from anything else, there will be a surge in people being off sick, including NHS and care staff.
It is too easy for the Government to say that the winter crisis and the huge waiting lists are simply the result of the challenges of Covid. The reality is that the entire health and social care system has been left dangerously exposed by this Government’s choices over the past 11 years. Before the pandemic, there were waiting lists of 4.5 million, staff shortages of 100,000 and social care vacancies of 112,000. This week, the National Audit Office starkly detailed that things are set to get even worse: waiting lists might double in the next three years.
Those NHS waiting lists stand at 6 million. Almost one in 10 people in England waits months, or even years, sometimes in serious pain and discomfort, because the Government have failed to get a grip on the crisis. Everyone understands that we are in the midst of a global pandemic that has placed the NHS under unprecedented pressure, but that does not excuse or explain why we went into the pandemic with NHS waiting lists already at record levels and with unprecedented staff shortages.
Of course, the investment described in the Statement is welcome, and the plan recognises the many challenges that the whole sector has faced over the past 18 months. Can the Minister say that the Statement is a credible plan to meet those enormous challenges? If it was a genuine plan to prepare for the winter, why did it arrive on 3 December? For example, I noticed that on one of the hottest days of the year, in August, people from GP practices, primary care networks and federations gathered to start to think creatively about managing their winter pressures in a session hosted by the NHS Confederation. When I served on a clinical commissioning group, we did our winter planning in June—it started in the early summer. The board on which I currently serve has been discussing winter pressures and our winter plans for months.
A serious plan to bring down waiting lists would have the workforce at its heart and would have clear targets and deadlines. A serious plan would recognise that, unless we focus on prevention, early intervention and fixing the social care crisis, there is no chance of bringing waiting lists down to the record low levels we saw under the previous Labour Government. A credible plan to tackle the NHS winter crisis—which was foreseeable and foreseen—would have been published long before 3 December. Without a serious strategy to build the health and social care workforce that we need, the plan is not a plan at all.

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely.

Baroness Brinton: I, too, thank the Minister for the Statement and I start by thanking all our NHS and social care staff, at all levels—back room or front  line—for all they are doing to keep the NHS and social care going while under the most extraordinary, sustained pressure.
Like others, I am struggling to see what is new in the Statement, which admits that the funding mentioned is not new. Although there is marginally more detail on how some of it will be spent, it is very light on by when the extremely urgent investment will deliver the help that our NHS and the public who use it desperately need.
Repeatedly, the Statement, and the accompanying so-called policy paper, The Health and Social Care Approach to Winter, refer to the urgent need to recruit more staff for both the NHS and the social care sector. However, it reports that currently, the NHS has an 8% vacancy rate at all job levels, and the social care sector, which has had more than 100,000 vacancies for some time, has had a further 3% reduction in staff since March this year.
Although there are proposals to increase staffing, can the Minister please explain where those staff will come from if they have not been able to be recruited over the past few months? How long will it take to recruit them? It is good that money is being put into the workforce, but I struggle with any suggestion that that will help to deal with the current winter crisis. When will the staff who are desperately needed in health and social care be available to join the teams out in the wards?
Both the Statement and the report talk about using locum services for doctors and agencies for nurses and social care staff, but health and social care employers tell the public daily that the extra qualified people are just not there. One of the problems in social care at the moment is that the NHS is poaching nurses from care homes. Please can the Minister explain who is going to fill those roles, given that training those skilled personnel takes a lot longer than a few months?
I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about delayed discharges. We have all been asking the Minister and his predecessor about specific plans to help the social care sector overcome its problems in the workforce, not just for months but for years. The high level of staff vacancies continues to worsen. Can the Government help in the short term? For example, NHS Providers made the very helpful suggestion today that the Government help to fund a winter retention bonus for social care staff. NHS Providers understands that we must get the log-jam moving, and if the only way to do that is for the Government to help, please will they consider that proposal very seriously?
The Statement says that the NHS needs to be able to offer more appointments, operations and treatments, which is absolutely right, including with the NHS itself. However, the capacity to change to innovative ways of working, with a heavy load of staff vacancies and the current sustained 20 months of intense pressure, seems to be extraordinary. To illustrate this, in the second week of November, there were 966,406 more GP appointments in England compared with the same week last year—and we were not in lockdown at that point last year.
The Statement talks about the transformation funding for elective recovery, announced in September. The plan lists the hospitals that have been successful in getting their schemes approved. I know, from experience in my local area in Watford, that some of the modular ward proposals can move ahead very quickly. Can the Minister tell us the likely earliest delivery date for any one of these projects? Once the buildings are there, when will extra staff be available to make these new wards work? We certainly do not want to see a repeat of the Nightingale hospitals.
The plan says that NHS Test and Trace will be carrying out contact tracing, so will the Minister say whether local test and trace will continue? It is noticeable that this was not mentioned at all, yet only two months ago Ministers were saying that this was where the focus of contact tracing would be. May I repeat the questions that I have asked on at least two occasions to the Minister? What is happening to the funding for the local resilience teams for Covid tracing and other pandemic work from April, given that, at the moment, there is no money in the budget whatever for the next financial year?
Last week, the Minister wrote to my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester about the delivery of vaccines to the vulnerable housebound who cannot go out either to their GP’s surgery or to vaccination centres. He wrote to her after the Question, confirming that GPs have a duty to offer vaccines to the housebound. He went on to say:
“If there are no GP practices signed up to phase 3, the CCG will make these alternative arrangements instead.”
Today’s Daily Telegraph talks about more than 300,000 people—more than two-thirds of the housebound—having yet to receive their booster doses. This is not hesitancy in people coming forward; it is clear that there is a problem. With many GP surgeries having withdrawn from delivering booster jabs because of their increased workload, can the Minister tell me when CCGs will be setting up these new systems and, most importantly, contacting and reassuring this vulnerable group of people about when they will get a visit from the mobile vaccination team? Putting the booster programme on steroids for all adults is of no use if the most vulnerable are not even being contacted. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. If he does not have the answers at his fingertips, I ask him to write to me.

Lord Kamall: My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their questions and for acknowledging that I may not have all the answers immediately; I will commit to write to them if I do not.
I will start with the questions on hospital beds and discharge. We are very aware that we have put in £478 million to get patients out of hospitals, freeing up beds. The NHS is also giving ambulance trusts an extra £55 million to boost numbers. It is our priority to ensure that people are discharged safely from hospital to the most appropriate place, and that they receive the care and support that they need. Our guidance sets out how the health and social care system is continuing to support the safe and timely discharge of people in  hospital. People who are clinically ready are supported to return to their place of residence where possible, where an assessment of longer-term needs takes place using the discharge-to-assess Home First model.
New or extended health and care support is funded for up to four weeks, until the end of March 2022. During this period, a comprehensive care and health assessment for any ongoing care needs, including determining funding eligibility, should take place. Since March 2020, we have made nearly £3.3 billion available via the NHS to support enhanced discharge processes and implementation of the discharge-to-assess model. This approach means that people who are clinically ready and no longer need to be in hospital are supported to return to their place of residence. We are also reviewing the way that we look at this scheme and how it works. We are very much aware of the issues raised about how we make sure that people are discharged in the most appropriate manner.
On the issue of investment, a number of trusts were asked to bid for funding, very much on the basis of which of those schemes could be delivered immediately and which were longer-term. Trusts have now been informed that their bids have been approved, and they are beginning to work to deliver them. NHS England and NHS Improvement will be monitoring the programme closely. Schemes were selected that could deliver immediate solutions that will support elective recovery this winter, as well as over the next three and a half years and beyond. This is just one element of how we are looking to make sure that we are dealing with things in the short term.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, acknowledges, some of these modular systems can come up to speed quickly, and that was considered in the bids that were put forward. Funding was allocated on a regional basis, based on the number of people living in each area, to ensure that funding is equally spread across the country. NHS regional teams identified and prioritised individual schemes and DHSC evaluated and approved them to ensure that the schemes that had the highest potential to help us reduce waiting lists for elective care were selected.
We have looked at a number of areas and, looking at the regional breakdown, we have had about £112 million in the north-east and Yorkshire; £97 million in the north-west; £131 million in the Midlands; £78 million in the east of England; £105 million in the south-east; £69 million in the south-west; and £109 million in London. There are a number of different schemes at various hospitals, on which I would be very happy to go into more detail if asked.
Turning to waiting lists, we need to recognise that 75% of people waiting do not require surgical treatment; 80% of those requiring surgical treatment can be treated without an overnight stay; and 20% of patients are waiting for ophthalmology treatment for eyes, or orthopaedics for bones, muscles and joints. So we are looking at how, on a targeted basis, we can address that backlog. We hope that, with the new diagnostic centres rolling out, we should be able to tackle a lot of that backlog.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I should declare my interest in relation to medicine, the BMA and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, and I would like to ask about emergency medicine. The winter flow data from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has data from 40 sites across the UK.  They are reporting that, in November, there were 275,596 attendances. Their long hospital stays had increased by 13% to more than 48,000 patients. Their 12-hour stays in emergency departments were twice as high as they had been in the previous year, and that was equivalent to 7.3% of all attendees. Their four-hour performance is incredibly low, at 62%. I know from one department that was built for 28 patients that, on a Monday in November, it had 108 patients in. This becomes unsustainable, and the overcrowding is a danger in terms of Covid and infection. It is also a danger to the welfare of staff because, in this particular department, even the staff toilets were not flushing, so the staff had to leave the department just to excuse themselves.
The estate takes time to rebuild and be repaired. What is being done with projects now to create additional space for emergency departments to manage this overcrowding? Is there targeted money going to make sure that the departments are in a good condition of maintenance for the staff? Separate, but related, to that, is the pension block, which has stopped doctors from returning from retirement and has pushed some doctors into early retirement, being addressed in the long term? It is important that doctors who have retired because their pension pot has reached its limit can be incentivised to come back to take pressure off in GP surgeries and in hospital departments, particularly out-patient departments, by seeing patients where their long-term experience and wisdom can contribute to the clinical services.

Lord Kamall: I thank the noble Baroness for the points she makes. We are doing what we can to support the dedicated NHS staff in healthcare services. This year alone, we have invested over £15 billion on top of the existing NHS annual budget, and that includes funding to help get patients out of hospital, freeing up beds and supporting hospitals to manage Covid-19. In addition, we are looking at how we can tackle capacity issues on NHS 111 and A&E. We are giving NHS 111 £98 million to boost capacity, help people avoid unnecessary ambulance trips to A&E and take pressure off hospitals. We realise that NHS 111 is often the first port of call to provide urgent medical advice quickly and book time slots for people at their local A&E or appointments at alternative services. We are also delivering the largest ever seasonal flu vaccination programme, so we hope to tackle it on that basis. A number of CCGs and others are having conversations about how we can tackle the pressures on A&E.
The noble Baroness makes the point about staff who, during Covid, went way beyond the call of duty, and we managed temporarily to address those concerns. We are very grateful to staff who had retired and returned, and we are looking at whether that can be a  long-term solution. We need to make sure that no one who is willing to come back is disincentivised. I do not have the details at the moment but I commit to write to her.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, the first paragraph of this Statement says that it outlines
“the preparations we are making so that health and social care services remain resilient … and available to patients”.
How does that square with the fate of the residents of Berkeley House in Kent, which was home to adults with severe learning difficulties and autism, who were told at 7.30 in the morning that they would have to leave by 5 that evening? Among them was one resident who had to be sedated to ensure he could safely be moved. Berkeley House is owned by Achieve Together, one of a chain of companies registered through the tax haven of Jersey that ultimately appears to be owned by AMP Capital, a global investment firm based in Australia. How does providing a “resilient … and available” social care system line up with homes such as this being run for profit, not for the public or the residents’ good?

Lord Kamall: We have to recognise that if we look at the social care system, there are an awful lot of private providers. Quite often, when we look at private providers, it is private patients who subsidise their ability to provide places for state-funded patients. In our health system overall, there will always be a mixed economy, including state provision. Lots of our GPs, for example, are partnerships—they are not state-run, some of them are co-operatives, some are even for profit. When we look at the overall health system, there will be a general balance. I am not aware of the particular case, so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it, but one of the things we are committed to is making sure that we improve services, whether they are state-funded or private, as part of the overall system of healthcare that we have in this country. Clearly, where providers are not providing a service, there will be CQC and other assessments to see whether they are fit.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, Covid-19 is absolutely rife in our schools, both primary and secondary. Teachers are in the front line. There are whole classes and even whole year groups being sent home because the teachers are off sick and they cannot even get supply teachers. A lot of teachers are under 40. Why can they not get boosters? If vaccines really are the answer, during this winter period, that would help more children to be able to stay in school and avoid disrupting their education. Will the Minister tell us about that?
Secondly, I go back to what both noble Baronesses on the Front Bench raised. Where are the social care staff going to come from? When I looked at the paper that sat behind this Statement, I noticed that there was nothing in it about changing the salary level at which visas can be offered to social care workers coming from abroad. Why not? We are desperate for social care workers. Can the Minister tell me—and if he  cannot, perhaps he will write to me—what proportion of vacant posts fall below the salary level required for a visa?

Lord Kamall: In terms of tackling the social care workforce, there are a couple of things: £162.5 million is going on a number of different schemes to make the social care sector an attractive place to work and we are looking, longer term, at professionalisation, so that people feel valued. At the same time, the minimum wage will help lift the pay of many people in social care work, but in the longer term we want to make sure that social care is not seen as the poor relation of other parts of the health service. We want to make sure that we have professionalisation and that it is all joined up. Some of these things will not be tackled in the short term, but we have a short-term programme called Made with Care, which is aimed at targeting and recruiting people to come and work in the social care sector. We realise that we have to do the long-term things, but also to promote short-term measures to tackle the issues we have at the moment. On specific statistics, as I am sure the noble Baroness can imagine, I do not have the details at hand but I commit to write to her.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interests as vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a member of Kirklees Council. I want to pick up on issues raised already by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, and the point that the Minister himself has just made about professionalising the workers in social care. On one hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, there are no spaces in social care for older people to be discharged into, because of a lack of availability of staffing, and we have heard already about some care homes being closed. The issue at the heart of all this is the great chasm of funding being made available for social care.
In my own council area in West Yorkshire, the pandemic has resulted in a 36% rise in demand for social care by adults in the last year, yet the funding from the Government is nowhere near going to meet that demand. What we have then, as a consequence, is older folk who have first gone into hospital because of ill health, and there is then nowhere available for them to be discharged into to continue their recovery and gain back their independence. The chasm of funding is at the heart of this. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will no longer impose the social care precept on the council tax payer, which, since 2016, has been at either 2% or 3% per annum? This is a totally regressive tax and has cost taxpayers in my part of the world well over £200 a year. What is needed is proper funding from the Government, not the bits and pieces that the Government have announced so far.

Lord Kamall: When you look at our health and social care sector, you see that one of the issues is a lack of joined-up thinking over the years. We have seen report after report about the future of adult  social care gathering dust on the shelves—not forgetting that lots of people who are not older are also in the social care system. The White Paper we published last week was a first attempt to try to tackle the problem long term. We recognise that you have to look at the long-term issue—which, frankly, successive Governments have kicked down the road for years, and not really tackled—and we have made an attempt to do that with the 10-year vision we published last week. But we have also committed to the first three years of funding, to realise that vision. We now have a framework against which to judge future progress in adult social care, so that, overall, it is no longer seen as a poor relation of the rest of the health system and is properly joined up on a number of different levels—not only career paths but also the data that can be shared, so that you do not have the drop-off that happens when someone leaves hospital and enters a social care home and you have to find all that data again; the home is prepared to accommodate that patient with all their specific needs at the beginning.
In the longer term, with increases in technology, we hope that, instead of patients leaving hospital to go to a residential home, they will be able to return to their own home with the help of technology. All that will take time, but we have laid out that vision.
In the short term, we have laid out the winter plan, which includes looking at how we tackle some of these social care issues and how we recruit more social workers via the £162.5 million. The Made with Care plan will make sure that social care seems more attractive. For a long time, no one has really “sold” social care as a career. We want to ensure that it is seen to be just as valid a career as any other and offers a real career path. We also want to see a professionalisation of the industry, so that people feel valued.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, in responding to my last question, the Minister referred to the mixed economy of ownership of healthcare provision. I am sure that he is aware that 84% of care home beds are provided by for-profit providers. Tonight, the “Panorama” programme is looking at HC-One, which is the biggest care home chain provider, with 321 care homes, formed in 2001 from the collapse of Southern Cross. I will not ask the Minister to watch the programme, since I know that he is a very busy person, but will he undertake to look at a summary of it, particularly the fact of the funding of HC-One, which appears to include a £540 million interest-only loan from a New York-listed property company? A great deal of this has been uncovered by the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability & Research.

Lord Kamall: I thank the noble Baroness for sharing all that data with me. The point remains that our system of healthcare will, through CCGs at the moment and integrated care services in the future, continue to commission some from the state and some privately; that is the way it is. What is really important is not who provides it but the care that the patient receives at the end of the day, and the fact that taxpayers are getting value for money. We should judge outcomes, not inputs.

Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) (No. 4) Regulations 2021
 - Motion for a Humble Address

Earl Attlee: Moved by Earl Attlee
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/1207), laid before the House on 29 October, be annulled because they fail to address the underlying cause of the shortage of HGV drivers.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

Earl Attlee: My Lords, in moving that the House annuls the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) (No. 4) Regulations 2021, I make it clear that I do not intend to test the opinion of the House. I remind the House that I have an interest, as I hold a C+E HGV driving licence and am a qualified HGV driving instructor, albeit somewhat out of date.
The House will be fully aware that we have faced a very serious shortage of HGV drivers, which has led in turn to petrol stations running out of fuel. There are obvious shortages of certain lines in our supermarkets and elsewhere, but these have been carefully managed by the industry to minimise the inconvenience to consumers. The good news is that, thanks to the efforts of my noble friend the Minister, the Commercial Motor magazine reports that the shortage is no longer deemed to be critical. Apparently, ONS statistics reveal that the number of HGV delivery drivers has increased from 233,000 in Q2 to 261,000 in Q3. It is reported that there are an extra 22,000 drivers aged between 45 and 65. There has also been an increase of 4,000 drivers over the age of 65 and past normal retirement age. We should congratulate my noble friend the Minister, who had the sense to write to every single HGV driver in the land—including me—asking them to come back to HGV driving.
In addition to the very slight relaxation to drivers’ hours provided by this and several other similar regulations, my noble friend has also altered some driving test requirements to free up more examiners for HGV testing. We have already debated these changes. I have no technical problem with the changes to drivers’ hours. My Motion refers to the serious underlying causes of the shortage, to which I will draw your Lordships attention. That is why I have tabled my Motion.
The first problem is now well known and concerns the lack of decent facilities for HGV drivers. This is part of what I said some time ago:
“This amendment concerns the provision of suitable rest facilities for drivers of commercial vehicles so that they can comply with the law and industry can attract and retain suitable drivers. The road transport and the bus industries are currently experiencing a shortage of drivers. Part of the cause may be the poor image and working conditions of the industry. In the past there were many establishments, collectively known as transport  cafés, distributed along the trunk road network. Nowadays few survive and most have been turned into Little Chefs or Happy Eaters. Unfortunately, heavy commercial vehicle drivers are not welcome because their vehicles are large and their spend is modest in comparison with that of most car drivers.”—[Official Report, 26/7/00; col. 524.]
I went on to talk about the need for a shower at the end of a day’s driving. I made that speech 21 years ago in your Lordships’ House, so the problem is not a new one. By chance, I recently saw a cartoon in the November 1987 edition of Truck & Driver magazine. The caption was, “Well try finding a cafe round here that’s not been turned into a Little Chef”. It is a planning problem that has been around for a very long time.
In order to be granted a vocational driving licence, the applicant needs to pass a medical examination. This is vital to protect the public from the consequences of a driver being taken ill while driving. Noble Lords will recall the tragedy in Glasgow a few years ago, when six pedestrians were killed. Even before Covid-19 struck, GPs—including mine—have been very reluctant to undertake these medical examinations. For my penultimate examination, I had to go from my home near Petersfield to Maidstone in Kent to get an examination. It is obviously far from ideal for the examination to be undertaken by anyone other than the applicant’s GP, because he or she has the patient’s notes going back, often to birth. This was a factor in the Glasgow tragedy, and the tragedy was entirely avoidable if the GP had been involved.
A further issue can arise if the HGV driver experiences a medical problem. For instance, a few years ago, I needed to undergo an angiogram procedure. As a result of that procedure, my consultant cardiologist was able to assure me that I was fit and safe to drive an HGV. But the DVLA’s medical panel then took several months to reinstate my HGV entitlement. Apart from interfering with my leisure activities, it had no adverse effect on me. However, it may cause a commercial driver either to retrain or return to another trade. It is exceptionally unfair and there seems to be little that an ordinary HGV driver can do about it. Of course, I did not exercise any influence because, first, it would be improper, and also I wanted to see how it would work out for an ordinary HGV driver. I am told that the advice among drivers is not to tell the DVLA about medical conditions and just not to drive an HGV against the doctor’s advice. The poor performance of the medical panel is my noble friend’s ministerial responsibility.
A further difficulty concerns the investigation of serious road traffic collisions. These are extremely distressing for all concerned but, so far as I can see, the police are very slow to exonerate a driver when he or she appears to be blameless. This can result in unfair dismissal and difficulty in securing employment and motor insurance—yet another disincentive to being a professional HGV driver.
A commercial driver, in addition to having an HGV licence, must have a driver certificate of professional competence. Maintaining it requires 35 days of training every five years. I do not have a DCPC as I am exempt, and nor do another 70,000 group C+E drivers and yet another 70,000 group C licence holders. We do not  have a shortage of HGV drivers at all, but a shortage of HGV drivers with a DCPC. The problem is that the training provided is not well regarded in the industry and many drivers let their DCPC run down and stop driving commercially. This has a serious adverse effect on part-time and occasional driving because it is not worth having a DCPC for that purpose.
We have left the EU. My noble friend the Minister could easily temporarily relax the requirement for a DCPC while she considers what is to replace it. That would still, in time, give her the corps of professional drivers that she rightly worked so hard to achieve, while the shortage of HGV drivers would be diminished in the short term.
I have banged on for many years about the licensing of goods vehicle operators. The system is still far from effective at eliminating rogue operators from the industry. These operators abuse drivers, force them to flagrantly breach drivers’ hours and give the industry a bad name.
HGV drivers are often despised, despite performing what we now recognise as a vital role in our economy. They are persecuted by traffic wardens when seeking to make a delivery and hounded by the DVSA over relatively trivial infringements of the drivers’ hours rules, while rogue operators are allowed to continue operating. They must frequently make very early starts to get our supplies delivered when and where we want them, which is simply not attractive to people coming into the industry. They also often have to defecate and urinate in the open due to lack of facilities. The staff at regional distribution centres have for decades been allowed to treat them badly for turning up a few minutes adrift from the planned schedule. The work is so unattractive that there are very few female HGV drivers.
My noble friend the Minister has correctly pointed out that many of the reasons why HGV driving is unattractive are down to the industry, and to an extent she is right. However, the two leading trade associations are not doing a first-class job for the industry as far as I can see, and some matters are not for the industry but for central government. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for ensuring that we have this important and very interesting debate. The reports of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee have been very wide-ranging in the points that they have raised relating to the series of legislation that has come through on drivers’ hours.
The first relaxation of hours was in December 2020 until 31 March 2021 and went from 90 hours per fortnight to 99, and from nine to 11 hours per day for a maximum of two days a week. I say to noble Lords: 11 hours a day of driving? The Minister is looking at me as if I have got the information wrong. I hope she will put me right later on.
On 12 July the relaxation was then extended until 4 October, but the committee— I refer to its 12th report, not its 18th, which I will come to in a minute—noted  that similar regulations were debated in March. It noted that the DVSA samples showed
“fairly high levels of non-compliance with the drivers’ hours regime”,
and that the Department for Transport did not have records of which of those cases, where there was non-compliance, had actually applied to use the extended hours officially and which cases were just ignoring the limitations. In practice, the Government have sanctioned longer hours. One action is bound, I believe, to knock on to the other. By sanctioning longer hours, it is almost a nod and a wink to those rogue operators the noble Earl mentioned—although I do not suggest that was the Government’s intention. It is not just a question of longer daily driving hours; it is a complex weekly pattern of rest periods for at least 24 hours.
The areas of concern are as follows. First, complexity itself is a problem in the observance of these regulations and, secondly, the Government give them as the reason for this relaxation so that they can maintain critical supply chains. But this relaxation applies to the industry as a whole. In so far as the department has undertaken consultation, the answers on whether the relaxation was welcomed were very divided: 47% were supportive and 43% were opposed. It is worth pointing out that the major haulage organisations have, over a period of time, expressed grave concerns at this method of managing, or attempting to alleviate, the crisis of a lack of drivers. They point out that this is a significant worsening of the employment conditions for drivers at a time when the Government have lighted upon poor employment condition as a reason why we have a driver shortage in the first place.
I notice from the Explanatory Memorandum on the current set of regulations that the word “Brexit” is not allowed to be used, but Brexit has complicated an already serious situation. The problem is that the Government cannot alleviate the situation by encouraging in new drivers from Europe, because the extending of drivers’ hours is seen as a worsening of conditions.
Getting to the nub of this, there is of course an inevitable impact on road safety. “Don’t drive tired” is a slogan for a reason. The secondary legislation committee points out that evidence from previous periods of relaxation has not been referenced or utilised. Normal drivers’ hours are based on accident statistics so they should not be ignored. Seriously, there are a lot of crashes involving lorries, so there is no lack of evidence.
Finally, the 18th report extends this measure again until 10 January. Temporary is becoming permanent, and it is not acceptable. People are learning to accept this; 27% of drivers stopped in roadside tests are now in breach of the normal hours, and there is no evidence that those people have applied for any kind of alleviation of their hours. The Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The Department has not been made aware of any increase in accidents”.
This is the Department for Transport, for goodness’ sake; it is in charge of collecting the statistics, it is not for them to be “made aware” by some outside body.
We need a more constructive approach to improving standards and quality of employment for HGV drivers, and I recommend that the Minister looks at the relais routiers in France. That might not be a popular idea  with the current Government, but it is a well-established system that provides good facilities, and I would welcome reassurance from the Minister that, now that the number of HGV drivers is beginning to pick up somewhat, we will not see this measure come back again.

Lord Rosser: These regulations, made at the end of October, further extend the relaxation limits to HGV drivers’ hours until 10 January next year, at which point this temporary exemption will have been in place continuously for six months, since 12 July this year. The instrument extends the normal daily limit of nine hours’ driving a day to 10 hours, up to four times a week, with an overarching limit of 56 hours’ driving in a week and 90 hours in a fortnight—or, as an alternative, introduces an amended weekly rest pattern that allows an additional day of driving in a fortnight, provided that an equivalent period of rest is taken before the end of the third week. This exception increases the maximum permitted driving time in a fortnight to 99 hours from the standard 90 hours.
In its 18th report of the current Session, published on 11 November, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, repeated its concerns
“that cumulative tiredness in HGV drivers may constitute a road safety hazard”.
It said:
“The responses to the consultation exercise quoted in the Explanatory Memorandum ... also take that view and add that these Regulations make HGV drivers’ working conditions worse, which is having a negative effect on recruitment”.
Continuing, the committee said—again I repeat something that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said:
“Our concern is bolstered by figures … that indicate that a significant proportion (27%) of the drivers stopped in roadside checks are breaching the Drivers’ Hours legislation. We have repeatedly asked the Department for Transport to provide evidence that would allay our concerns, but the responses have indicated that the Department does not have information either way”.
The department has said that it has
“not been made aware of any increase in accidents involving HGVs since the temporary exceptions to the drivers’ hours rules were first introduced in July 2021”.
That, not surprisingly, says the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, is “not sufficient to allay” its concerns.
Therefore, I invite the Government to say in their response what evidence they have that the relaxation of limits to HGV drivers’ hours provided for in these regulations, which have been in effect for nearly five months, does not increase cumulative tiredness to an extent that constitutes a road safety hazard. On how many occasions has the relaxation in hours provided for in these regulations actually been used, and by how many different firms? Why does the Department for Transport not have figures on the proportion of drivers stopped in roadside checks who breached drivers’ hours legislation in force at the time they were stopped? I would have thought that that was a fairly important piece of information, which one would have thought the Department for Transport would have.
The Department for Transport provided the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee with 28 short, medium and long-term interventions it had put in place to alleviate the existing HGV driver shortage. One can of  course take the government line that this shows how active and focused they are in seeking to address the driver shortage—a shortage that they have known about for years but have nevertheless still been caught on the hop by—or one can take the view that the Government do not know what steps will address the driver shortage issue. That would be consistent with their inability to provide the information and meaningful assurances sought by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and would suggest that the 28 interventions simply reflect an approach more akin to thrashing around in all directions hoping that a course of action will finally turn up trumps.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says in its report on the list of 28 interventions that
“while this list shows the various strands of the Department’s current activity, we still lack a strategic statement of the programme’s objectives, milestones and costs, against which its effectiveness and value for money can be assessed.”
Can the Government now provide that strategic statement, either in their response today or subsequently, and indicate the cost of each of the 28—or perhaps now more—interventions and the specific impact each one is expected to have on the existing HGV driver shortage, bearing in mind that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has argued that these specific regulations on drivers’ hours will not address the underlying causes of the shortage?
On one specific intervention, namely increasing cabotage for foreign hauliers in the UK, which extends through to the end of April next year, can the Government say today how that meets the Prime Minister’s previously stated desire to see significantly higher pay for UK drivers? Allowing foreign transport operators to make unlimited journeys in the UK for two weeks before returning home can only mean UK drivers facing more competition for work, which will depress rather than increase levels of pay, as previously desired by the Prime Minister.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee commented that no formal impact assessment had been prepared and that the Explanatory Memorandum provided no information on how many additional HGV journeys might be added by this instrument or what the take-up by foreign operators might be. Continuing, the committee said:
“We therefore have no means to assess whether the number of operators involved will constitute a threat to the UK workforce, or to measure whether the legislation is likely to be effective.”
Can the Government in their response give some figures to indicate what the impact has been to date of this relaxation in restrictions on cabotage?
It appears that the underlying causes of the driver shortage—and I will not go through all the reasons mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—relate to pay and conditions, including the provision of decent facilities for drivers away from the cab of their vehicle. The job, and the standing it has at present, does not appear attractive, particularly to younger people. The workforce is overwhelmingly older white males and is certainly not diverse, which means that the actual potential recruitment pool is less than it might be.  I understand that pay is now rising, turnover is falling, provisional licences are increasing and further  improvements are anticipated in the new year—albeit there is still a shortage which will not be properly addressed until next year.
I am sure the Government will have some hard information to give on the current driver shortage situation today in their response and the extent to which it is the Government’s 28—or is it 32?—measures that have or have not delivered, and the extent to which they agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on the underlying causes of the shortage of HGV drivers, which these regulations on relaxation of limits to hours, the noble Earl has powerfully argued, fail to address.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords, before the Minister gets up to reply, could she tell the House whether it is the Government’s intention to renew these regulations next year, and, if so, why and on what basis?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate today, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has extensive knowledge of and expertise in this area. We are very grateful for his input. I will address the drivers’ hours issue first, as fully as I can, and then go on to discuss some of the other issues that have been raised.
Let me start by saying that we are absolutely committed to ensuring the welfare of drivers and protecting all road users, and we recognise that the long-standing drivers’ hours rules that are in place are critical to achieving these objectives. We have therefore deployed these relaxations with the utmost care. Safety is the key consideration, and there are four pillars to our thinking. First, safety must be considered with regard to the extent of the relaxations made. Secondly, we must protect drivers against any cumulative fatigue. Thirdly, it must be clear to the industry about when and how it should use these relaxations; we have published clear guidance on this. The last pillar is about the use of these relaxations.
First, on the extent of the relaxations, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson: I thought she was talking about the current SI—not the one before last—when she said 11 hours, because it is now 10 hours, as I am sure she knows. I was shaking my head when she said 11 hours because I thought we were talking about the current relaxation, not the one that expired many months ago.
The drivers’ hours relaxations are very limited; I think noble Lords will agree on that. No requirements of the rules, whether it be breaks during the day, daily and weekly rest periods, or weekly and fortnightly driving limits, have been removed. The rules have been relaxed in a limited and controlled way.
I will not go into the details of the relaxations, because noble Lords have mentioned them, so I assume that they are aware of them. But, of course, these two relaxations are underpinned by the requirements of the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005, which also limit drivers’ working hours to an average  of 48 hours a week over a 17 to 26-week reference period. These regulations also limit drivers to a maximum of 60 hours in any given week, provided that the average is still 48 hours. These working time regulations provide the protection against cumulative fatigue, which is the second pillar we considered when putting the 2021 regulations into place.
The third pillar is the published guidance. We are absolutely clear about when and how these relaxations can be used. There has to be evidence of a detriment to the wider community, there must be a significant risk of a threat to human and/or animal welfare, and there must be confirmation from the haulier’s customers that these risks actually exist. Only then can the operator use the relaxation. Operators using the relaxation, or proposing to use it, must notify the department. The operator must also notify the department later on about whether it has used the relaxation or not. Of course, this assists with transparency, and we can check compliance.
Some noble Lords may feel that that is not enough and that perhaps we need more evidence of who is actually using these relaxations. As of July last year, there were 68,982 HGV operator licence holders in Great Britain, which rounds up to 69,000. In October, 141 operators submitted notification forms. So, that is 141 out of 69,000. Only 111 of those submitted forms to follow up with the department, and just 80—out of 69,000—actually used the relaxations. We are not hearing from industry that they are not using the relaxations because they are too complicated, or whatever. It is because the safeguards are in place and we have set those out in guidance, and we are absolutely clear on the circumstances in which these relaxations can be used. Therefore, I am content that they are being used in circumstances when it is really necessary to meet those criteria that we set out in guidance. So, let us face it, we are talking about very few drivers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was concerned about this impression that the Government want to worsen conditions. I am not getting that from the industry. I think it recognises this very limited use of drivers’ hours extensions. We have acted really carefully, again within the guidance, to make it clear that transport managers should make sure that risk assessments have been carried out if they plan to use these relaxations at all. They must monitor and review where the relaxations are used; it must also be done in agreement with the workforce.
I believe there are sufficient safeguards. I hear from HGV drivers quite a lot, and I am not hearing anybody, as yet, say to me that they are being forced to work extended hours owing to these relaxations. Maybe I will get a flurry of emails tomorrow—something tells me I probably will not.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the evidence of incidents. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was aghast that the Department for Transport does not have up-to-date, real-time information about incidents on the roads. That is because the data is collected by the police and not the department. The data from one year goes through a series of checks and is usually delivered annually from the police to the department midway through the following year. We  are not hearing from the police that there is a flurry of serious incidents with HGV drivers. That is a good thing. None of us wants to see incidents on our roads, and I believe that the protections are in place to ensure that they do not happen.
We must come to the very important issue of enforcements and the oft-quoted figure of 27% in the SLSC report. I think it is terrible too; I cannot agree with your Lordships more. It would be an astonishingly bad figure if it were representative of the sector as a whole—which it is not. I had the privilege of visiting the DVSA on Friday. I chatted to a group of enforcement people, who showed me some of the really bad stuff that goes on out there: drivers’ hours, wheel nuts—we have some very strange configurations of wheel nuts—and all sorts of things which are really bad. I was shocked; I congratulated them on their work and encouraged them to continue with great vigour. Then they showed me their pièce de résistance, which they have had for about 18 months.
They have access to all the ANPR cameras in the country, and they basically track all trucks, which is very cool. As they track all the trucks, they look at which ones to target on the basis of the intelligence they have coming through and what has happened before. In that 27%, there has already been a great big screening of all the trucks wafting around British roads, and they are the ones that have been targeted by the intelligence coming out of the fantastic work the DVSA does—not only the intelligence it gets from industry but the operator compliance risk score, which I am sure noble Lords are well aware of. They can do it in real time; they can see a truck driving up the road, and if it has a little red flag by it, they can send a car out, stop it and enforce it.
The other issue to note, which is regrettable, is that overseas operators make up a large proportion of non-compliance on UK roads. That is very disappointing, and we will need to look at it more closely. Between 12 August and 31 October, the DVSA undertook 111 checks against operators that had notified the department of their intent to use the relaxations; 58 offences for drivers’ hours were identified, of which only 12 related to the relaxed rules—this is the important bit, which certainly goes back to what my noble friend Lord Attlee was saying—and none was sufficiently serious to warrant a fixed penalty. To be honest, if it is five minutes, it is probably not worthy of a fixed penalty.
I reassure my noble friend that the Government are aware that we do not want to victimise HGV drivers for very small infringements, and that it must be sufficiently serious to warrant a fixed penalty. That does not mean we want to give them an easy ride, but we understand that, sometimes, for a few minutes it might be impossible to stop, for whatever reason. In general, though, that enforcement record is pretty good.
I hope I have been able to convince noble Lords of the thinking behind these relaxations. The noble Lord asked whether we would extend them. That is not currently our intention, although of course we are looking at the data very carefully as we head through and past the Christmas period.
Now I can come on to some good news. I am sure that noble Lords will have spotted today that there is some good news coming out of the sector. My 32 different actions, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is so fond of mentioning, are working, which is brilliant. Logistics UK, one of the large representative bodies, has come out today with a report showing that people are returning to the industry, if they had previously left. We also know from DVLA data that it is pumping through 4,200 applications a day—we have thrown an awful lot of resources at that.
We are looking at the lack of facilities, which is something that we take very seriously. We have completed the tender for a report reviewing parking and facilities countrywide. We have a £32.5 million pot of funding that we can use to encourage the private sector to improve facilities and set up new ones. I would like to share with noble Lords that I had a really good ministerial trip on Friday: I went to open the Ashford international truck stop and, my word, it is amazing. It sets a really high standard. I encourage all private companies and operators that have truck stops to go and look at Ashford because those in charge have done a lot of thinking about what drivers need. It is a class site, with 600 HGV parking spaces available. Now we have to think about how we either improve lots of existing sites or find places for new ones, because noble Lords will recognise that there are issues with planning.
I will finish with a couple of other issues. On medical examinations, we have set out plans to widen the pool of registered healthcare professionals who do DVLA medical questionnaires, which should help. We are also working with GPs to make sure that routine medicals are restarted.
We have launched a review to look at ways of streamlining driver CPC. My noble friend said that it would be easy to relax it—I wish it were. We cannot even suspend it, as it would take primary legislation to do so. However, we believe that ongoing professional training is a valid part of an HGV driver’s life so we are looking at reviewing how to make that better. Randomly saying that you must have 35 hours does not seem the best way of making sure that HGV drivers are up to speed with the regulations.
As I said on Friday, if we do not look after them then they will not look after us, so we need to look after them and the Government are doing that. We are working very closely with the industry. Hopefully, next year we will have a hugely impactful year of logistics. We will make sure that people understand that HGV driving is a good career that we want people to come into. The Government are doing everything that we can to improve the situation, but we recognise that, at the end of the day, this is a private sector and we must support this private sector in doing what it does best.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, I am interested in the Minister’s visit to the DVSA and her comment that a large percentage of the drivers not obeying the rules work for foreign operators. Is that not rather at variance with the Government’s decision to relax the rules on cabotage for foreign operators? Is that not a risky decision?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: We must recognise that the vast majority of all haulage operators obey the rules. It is because we have such a good, targeted approach that we are able to target those that do not. A lot of work goes into connecting the dots between different vehicles belonging to the same operators.
Let us turn to cabotage, although I will probably write further on this subject. The cabotage extension is very limited, going from being able to do two journeys under cabotage to a period of two weeks. From what we understand, this is about a tiny percentage of haulage journeys. I will see if I can get any further figures for the noble Baroness. Again, I am not getting huge numbers of hauliers writing to me saying “This is terrible, they’re stealing our business.” Most hauliers have more business than they can possibly cope with. I will write with that information but I do not think you can necessarily relate the two. It is the case that the vast majority of haulage operators and drivers follow the rules.

Lord Rosser: The noble Baroness made reference to the driver hours relaxation and gave some figures, for which I thank her very much. Is not the real explanation of why those figures are low that, in the consultation, the proposition was opposed by the Road Haulage Association as well as Unite the Union? Clearly they were not going to queue up to use it, because they did not agree with it anyway.
I notice as well that the noble Baroness said that the cabotage extension is limited, so that is two of the 28 items down here where the Minister herself has admitted that they have had a fairly limited impact. I suggest that it is not the Government’s 28 items—or indeed 32, if that is what it is now. The biggest one so far as far as road haulage drivers are concerned has been the increase in pay that has happened. I do not think that this featured too highly in the 28 courses of action to which the Government referred.
Finally, what is the significant proportion of drivers stopped in roadside checks who are breaching the drivers’ hours legislation? I gather that it is not the 27% that was quoted in one survey, so what is the figure? Why was it that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee repeatedly asked the Department for Transport to provide evidence that would allay its concerns but the responses indicated that the department does not have information either way. Why did not the department provide any information then?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I could possibly give an entirely new speech on this but I would probably not be popular if I did—my Whip agrees with me.
The RHA wanted something entirely different—we know that. It always wanted us to open the floodgates and allow EU drivers to come in. Indeed, I am looking at the noble Lord and trying to remember whether any good ideas have come from the Benches opposite as to how we solve the HGV crisis. I believe Keir Starmer wanted to open the doors to 100,000 EU drivers—that was the Labour way of solving this crisis. We have taken a very different stance. As the noble Lord will know, no EU drivers are willing to come flooding in anyway, as I have said many times. We have set out a  range of short, medium and long-term actions. Some are very substantial; for example, we removed the HGV levy. That saves hauliers lots of money, and from that money they can pay their staff more. We have also frozen VED. As I have said right from the outset, there is not one thing that will fix this; it is a whole succession of things. Some are short, medium and long term, some are big and others are little; that is why we have 32 actions. I am proud of those 32 actions and I believe that they are fixing the crisis.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am especially grateful to the Minister for explaining how limited the relaxation is to the drivers’ hours. It is very helpful for her to clear up the issue of the 27% infringement rate. I have always been very well aware that when the DVSA stops a commercial vehicle it is normally acting on intelligence, so it is not surprising that it finds a high rate of infringement both on drivers’ hours and vehicle condition. It does not go and stop a Tesco’s lorry, for instance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about the complexity of the drivers’ hours regulations. They are indeed very complex if you want to go right up to the limit. If you do not need to go right up to the limit, they are quite simple.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the lack of a strategic statement. The problem the Minister has with facilities is very wide-ranging, and the planning system is a very major obstacle to providing better facilities. I do not think £32 million will go very far; it will not be easy to change the planning system, and this is not even a matter for my noble friend’s department. However, I am extremely grateful for her responses and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
 - Report (Continued)

Amendment 7

Baroness Mallalieu: Moved by Baroness Mallalieu
7: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert—“(4) No person may be appointed a member of the Committee unless they have confirmed that they—(a) are not affiliated to an organisation promoting animal rights;(b) are not a member of an organisation promoting animal rights;(c) are not currently employed and have never been employed by or been a consultant of an organisation promoting animal rights;(d) are not in receipt of, nor have ever been in receipt of, payments or funding, whether directly or indirectly, from an organisation promoting animal rights.”

Baroness Mallalieu: I am the lucky recipient of yet another of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He did not indicate to me why he had decoupled it from the previous group. I think the Minister has, in effect, already replied by saying that he is not prepared to put in the Bill who should be  on the committee. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, effectively sets out who should not be, and I assume that the same answer will come to me.
However, I would like to say, literally in a sentence, that one of the reasons for widespread disquiet about the Bill is concern about who may or may not find places on the committee. I come from an area where the animal rights movement has been particularly virulent, especially during the badger cull, with people with balaclavas damaging farm property, threatening people, letting livestock out and so on, and, more recently, damaging all the tents at the local country fair by painting Animal Liberation Front logos on everything. As a result of that, a lot of us are concerned that some well-known public figures who purport to be friends of animals and campaign on their behalf do not condemn this terrorism. We are concerned that, whoever comes on to this committee, they should be, as the Government have indicated is their intention, people with proper scientific experience and knowledge who can contribute—not from a neutral point of view, because that is impossible, but whose judgement can be relied on—rather than people who are merely from pressure groups. I beg to move.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: Very briefly, I think the concerns on this amendment were answered in the response to the previous group. As it is not necessary to have in the Bill who should be on the committee, it is not necessary to have in it who should not be on the committee.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for moving the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. We have already debated this, but I understand my noble friend’s concerns regarding conflicts of interest and what they may mean for the committee.
We want the committee to succeed, and I am confident that the Bill and the draft terms of reference will ensure that that is the case. As has been said today, the Secretary of State for Defra will be responsible for appointments to the committee and appointments will be decided in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. Applicants would, in line with best practice, be required to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the recruitment panel. The draft terms of reference set out that the Secretary of State may decline to consider an application from an individual whose conduct suggests that their membership could damage the reputation or credibility of the committee—for example, their membership of an extremist organisation. My noble friend’s amendment is simply not necessary. Defra has shown that this tried-and-tested approach works. There are a number of existing Defra-owned expert bodies which give balanced, reasonable advice on animal welfare issues. Few would ever accuse the Animal Welfare Committee, for example, of being made up of zealous activists.
I say again that noble Lords can be reassured that the process of recruitment of members of the committee will be rigorous and that members will be chosen on the merits of their expertise. This is what is needed in  order for the committee to perform its role. I hope that this reassures noble Lords and that, together with the reassurance given by my noble friend the Minister on the previous group, it will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Robathan: Before my noble friend sits down, could she reassure the House that, for instance, Chris Packham and Mark Avery of Wild Justice would not be eligible to be on the committee?

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: I am afraid I am not able to give that reassurance. All I can say is that they might not be considered to be experts.

Baroness Mallalieu: I thank the Minister for her reply. I just hope that the reassurance she has given us will be followed by future Secretaries of State. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 7 withdrawn.
Amendment 8 not moved.

Amendment 9

Viscount Ridley: Moved by Viscount Ridley
9: Clause 1, leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause—“Animal Sentience Committee(1) A Committee within the Cabinet Office, called the Animal Sentience Committee, will be established and maintained.(2) The function of the Committee will be to determine whether in the process of formulating and implementing policy it is satisfied that Ministers of State and the departments of state are having, or have had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is intended to reduce conflict over membership by creating an internal committee of the Cabinet Office.

Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 9, 11, 33 and 37 in this group, which are in my name. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I have torn up three-quarters of my speech to speed things up. I declare my interest as a fortunate owner of farmland, woodland, moorland and river. I affect the welfare of sentient animals, both positively and negatively, from time to time.
Together, these amendments would cut some of the Gordian knots that we have wrestled with today, and would deliver an animal sentience committee that reported to Parliament but was independent of Defra. The role of the committee as proposed in this amendment must be understood together with the animal welfare strategy that it would be required to produce under Amendment 11. The committee would then be required to report to Parliament on the compliance of Ministers with this process, as in Amendment 33, to which Ministers must respond, as in Amendment 37.
If the sentience committee is to ensure that animal welfare is properly considered, and to act as an accountability mechanism to Parliament, to create it as a creature of Defra raises a number of problems. It may not be welcomed by other departments, which, as the draft terms of reference confirm, are under no obligation to co-operate with it. A committee within the Cabinet Office would have a clear, overarching remit, set a cross-departmental standard and be independent of other departments, whose Ministers would still be required to respond to the committee’s reports to Parliament. The other advantage of a statutory committee within the Cabinet Office is that it avoids the problems identified at earlier stages of the Bill around who should or should not sit on the committee, which we have just discussed.
A committee within the Cabinet Office that is not a Defra committee would be better placed, I would argue, to drive change across government, avoid inter-departmental resentments—as I said earlier—and ensure that all due regard to animal welfare was properly and consistently applied. Then, as with the current proposal, it would be for parliamentarians to hold Ministers to account.
Amendment 11 would ensure that there was a clear strategy setting out how, in the process of developing, deciding and implementing policies, the animal welfare implications of those policies must be considered.
Amendment 33 largely replicates the existing Bill but takes account of the animal welfare strategy, while still allowing the sentience committee to play a role where it feels that there has been a failure of process in compliance with the strategy before a policy decision has been made. This would seem a much more impactful approach to driving change across government than the current proposals.
Amendment 37 ensures that Ministers must explain to Parliament any failure to comply with the animal welfare strategy identified by the sentience committee. It would also mean, for example, that if the matter  was a policy relating to the Department of Health, it would be for the Health Secretary to respond. The Bill is not, at the moment, clear on this, although the  draft terms of reference make it clear that that is what is intended. That intention should be made clear in  the Bill.
I hope it is clear that these amendments are intended to be helpful and are in the spirit of trying to turn a bad Bill into a less bad Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, there is a large number of amendments in this group, so in the interests of time and the number of groups yet to be debated I shall focus on Amendment 38 in my name, which would insert a new clause after Clause 3 requiring the ASC to submit an annual report on its work to both Houses of Parliament. I shall also speak to Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.
The animal sentience committee is being set up as a non-departmental public body with an advisory function. The latest available figures suggest that 63% of such bodies present an annual report to Parliament. It is clearly in the interests of accountability and transparency  for MPs and Peers to be able to regularly scrutinise the committee’s work. A yearly report would also allow parliamentarians to gain a wider view of animal sentience issues over the preceding 12 months and of any emerging policy trends that impact on it. Requiring an annual report through this new clause would ensure that this essential transparency and accountability measure is sustained throughout the lifetime of the committee. I urge the Minister to consider including it in the Bill.
On Amendment 21, noble Lords have previously discussed in Committee the prescriptive wording of the question that Clause 2 requires the ASC to consider. These discussions highlighted how this wording, which specifies that only “adverse” effects should be considered, could lead to important opportunities to enhance animal welfare being missed. On the first day of Committee on 6 July, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, signalled his agreement, saying that
“the committee should be free to consider positive effects”.—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 309.]
This appears to have informed the welcome provision in the circulated terms of reference, which states:
“The Committee may consider how ministers have had a positive effect on animals as sentient beings in the policy-making process.”
We welcome this. However, the committee could  also prioritise supporting government departments in minimising the possibility of any policy having a harmful effect on the welfare of animals. This is a sensible approach, which balances giving the committee the freedom to consider all opportunities to enhance animal welfare with the need to prioritise the avoidance of harmful effects.
However, the wording of the Bill itself remains unchanged and continues to require the committee to only consider “adverse effects”. This contradiction could lead to complications. An ASC report focused on positive effects could be challenged, with any defence based on the licence to consider positive effects conferred by the terms of reference being undermined by the prohibition on doing so in the text of the legislation. I hope that the Minister will consider this, as it is a simple amendment. Removing the word “adverse” from the Bill text would allow a sensible approach—which is in the published terms of reference—to be safely and fully implemented by the committee.

Lord Benyon: I thank your Lordships for amendments, and I hope that I can provide some reassurance on the points made.
I start with Amendment 9, in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley, which would establish the animal sentience committee as a committee within the Cabinet Office. I would argue that Defra is well placed to host the animal sentience committee—which I will refer henceforth to as “the committee”. Defra’s hosting allows it to be affiliated as a constituent of Defra’s animal welfare centre of expertise, alongside other expert animal welfare committees, such as the Animal   Welfare Committee. This provides for these committees to draw upon one another’s expertise much more easily than if they were hosted separately.
In his explanatory statement, my noble friend suggested that, if the committee were under the Cabinet Office, it would be easier to reach agreement on membership. It is not clear how changing the host department would achieve this. We believe that our approach to recruiting experts means that the committee will have the right experts. The same considerations would apply regardless of which department was responsible for supporting the committee.
Importantly, Amendment 9 would mean that the committee would be non-statutory, with no independent existence from government. This would undermine  its purpose—one of proportionate scrutiny and accountability. A statutory committee allows experts the appropriate independence to achieve its function.
Amendments 11, 33 and 37, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley, would require the animal sentience committee to publish an animal welfare strategy and for the committee and the Government to undertake actions associated with this. In this Bill, we have given the committee the power to produce reports about individual policies containing its views on to what extent the UK Government are having, or have had, all due regard to the ways in which those policies might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. We believe that it is important for the committee itself to decide which policies to report on, within the remit of the terms of reference. We would expect it to form an overview of all policy decisions with a significant effect on the welfare of animals. This need not cover every single policy decision but could cover those which are of a higher priority to animal welfare.
To ask this committee to produce reports relating to every department annually would be a significant burden and would mean less scrutiny on those policies that really matter. We want the committee to be targeted, timely and proportionate in how it operates. It is better to focus on policy decisions which have the most impact. The co-operation of departments is necessary for the committee to be able to work effectively, and Defra is already working to secure this. I believe a collaborative approach is the most appropriate one.
The committee’s role is not to set out a strategy for animal welfare nor to devise plans for future policy. These are clearly a matter for the Government. In May this year, the Government launched Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare. This sets out the Government’s current and future reform programme on animal welfare, covering both kept animals and wild animals under a series of strategic themes. I do not see the need for the committee to publish its own animal welfare strategy.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, feels that we have already covered Amendment 13 and the remit of the animal sentience committee in group 2. But I am happy for him to raise issues in a moment if he feels we have not.
I turn to Amendments 17, 22 and 34, in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, concerning the reports of the animal sentience committee. The committee will be made up of eight to 12 members, and we  anticipate it will take forward six to eight reports a year. However, Amendment 17 would require it to issue a report on all policy decisions. This is neither feasible nor desirable. We want proportionate and targeted scrutiny and accountability, and in so doing, the committee is to consider which policy decisions it deems most important. It should not be beholden to consider every policy decision regardless of its importance to animal welfare.
The question in Clause 2(2) is designed to allow the committee to express its views in an informative way to provide a proper understanding of the decision-making process followed. We believe that the committee’s recommendations are likely to be nuanced. The purpose of these reforms is not to impose a simple “pass or fail” test, which Amendments 22 and 34 suggests it should. That is not necessary, and it is likely to be unhelpful, and indeed unworkable, in many cases.
There may well be cases where the committee’s report into a policy decision does not identify major concerns but makes recommendations that would further improve future decision-making. The proposed amendments would not cater for this situation. While I understand, in principle, the rationale for limiting the requirement for Ministers to reply only to reports which identify major concerns, this would generate missed opportunities to consider valuable recommendations for improvements.
I turn to Amendments 20 and 25, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which query the use of the phrase “all due regard” when describing what the committee is to consider in its scrutiny of policy formulation and implementation. The technical meaning of the phrase “all due regard” in this instance is not considered to be materially different to that of the phrase “due regard”; “all due regard” emphasises that the committee should assess the extent to which all relevant factors affecting animal welfare are being considered.
I turn now to Amendments 21 and 26, again from my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which seek to clarify that the committee can consider positive impacts on the welfare of some animals of a policy alongside the negative effects of that policy on the welfare of other animals. This point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Meeting the welfare needs of animals includes avoiding negative impacts as well as providing for positive experiences. Depriving an animal of its ability to have positive experiences, like exhibiting natural behaviours, counts as an adverse effect. I can assure your Lordships that the reference to “an adverse effect” in the Bill allows the committee to consider whether the positive experiences of an animal have been restricted.
We consider that the committee is already able to express its views on the ways in which a policy decision may not be able to maximise the welfare needs of animals, and that it may set out missed opportunities to make positive improvements to animal welfare. This is outlined in the draft terms of reference. Furthermore, I assure my noble friend that the Bill does not change existing law on pest control or impose any new restrictions on individuals or businesses.
I turn to Amendment 32 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, concerning the Bill’s scope with respect to the devolved Administrations. The committee will select policy decisions made by the UK Government on which it can issue reports. This will cover all matters that do not fall within the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations. As animal welfare policy is a devolved issue, it is a matter for the devolved Administrations as to how they wish to recognise and consider animal sentience when formulating and implementing devolved policies. It would be inappropriate for their Ministers to be held to account to the UK Parliament on matters that fall within their legislative competence.
Scotland has already used secondary legislation to establish an advisory body, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which advises its Government on those policy areas for which they are responsible. The commission has been asked to consider how the welfare needs of sentient animals are being met by policies of the Scottish Government. The Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly are free to introduce their own legislation, should they wish. In addition, the Welsh Government have powers to set up a committee through secondary legislation if they wish to.
Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the animal sentience committee to publish an annual report. We wish to ensure that the committee is as effective as possible in undertaking its role. Reports issued by the committee will be made available on its public website. Ministers will be required to prepare a written response to these reports for Parliament, which will create opportunity to hold Ministers to account. This process will provide a great deal of transparency about  the committee’s work and the policies it has chosen  to consider. Further transparency will be provided through the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Act.
We will conduct regular performance reviews of the committee to ensure that it is fulfilling its purpose. However, we would not want to commit to an onerous annual reporting process for the committee in statute. This could take resources away from the committee’s primary scrutiny role. Ministers are required to lay timely written responses to every committee report before Parliament. This means that Parliament will be well aware of what the committee has been working on.
Finally, government Amendment 36 is a technical amendment that clarifies the time limit in which Ministers must respond to reports published by the committee. The Bill requires Ministers to lay a written response to a report before Parliament within three months of the report’s publication. This amendment excludes from that time limit certain periods in which Parliament is not sitting. We wish to make it clear that, in these limited circumstances, a Minister may submit a written response at a more appropriate time. We are committed to Ministers providing timely responses. That is why we want the time limit established by the Bill to be clear. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for raising this issue. While we did not   have the opportunity to discuss this amendment in Committee, we have considered his contribution and improved the wording of the Bill.

Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I am obviously a little disappointed that my brilliant suggestion about the Cabinet Office committee has not fallen on more fertile ground. To use an analogy, you would keep a sheep dog in a kennel rather than with the sheep, but I will not pursue that one. I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 9 withdrawn.
Amendments 10 and 11 not moved.

  
Clause 2: Reports of the Committee
  

Amendments 12 to 22 not moved.

Amendment 23

Lord Moylan: Moved by Lord Moylan
23: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert “, but such recommendations may only be made after the report referred to in subsection (1) has been published in an academic journal following peer review.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment ensures the academic robustness of the Committee’s work.

Lord Moylan: My Lords, Amendments 23 and 35 give the House the opportunity to discuss the robustness of the science on which the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill is allegedly resting. I detect a lack of enthusiasm for the wide-ranging debate on this topic that might have otherwise ensued at a more timely part of the day, so I shall keep my remarks as brief  as can.
I was once on the Zambezi and had the opportunity to observe the crocodiles. These are largely placid animals that sit basking in the sun but, when hungry, they can move with terrifying rapidity and can kill very rapidly indeed. The person I was with, who knew about crocodiles, said—and I will stand corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, if I have got any of this wrong, of course—that the brain of a crocodile is a very small thing. The size of a pea was suggested to me, and that there was no capacity within the brain at all, neurologically, for a function that allowed for any memory. The consoling thought that was offered to me was that, since a crocodile cannot remember anything, if it did eat me, it was not personal.
We are about to enact a Bill—we are close to passing it through our House—without limitation that, as I understand it, declares a crocodile to be a sentient creature; that is, a creature that can experience pleasure and pain, and science is prayed in aid to support this. I take the crocodile simply as an example, there are other creatures with brains almost as small as a crocodile and probably even smaller that are being covered  and in scope of this Bill. The difficulty of this is, they have very limited functions, partly because the size of the brain simply limits the functions that they can actually have.
No one doubts, as a matter of science, that a crocodile, as I say taken as an example, will respond in a certain way if a sufficiently strong stimulus is applied to it. That is a neurological reaction explicable by the movement of chemicals and electrons through the nervous system and in what passes for the crocodile’s brain. What we are being asked to do here goes way beyond that. How can this be extended scientifically—not by analogy, not by empathy, but scientifically—to include the concept of pain in a crocodile as we understand pain.
Pain is more than a simple neurological reaction. Pain, as we understand it, exists in anticipation. One worries about it coming in one’s direction. It exists in reflection; one thinks about it in the past. One has coping strategies for dealing with it, and so on. Most importantly, it exists as a time of abnormality. Pain is abnormal; we want the pain to go away, so that we  can go back to normal. How can a creature with no memory have any conception of what normality is, let alone what abnormality is? How can it understand pain, beyond that neurological reaction, in any sense that we understand it? Yet there are scientists, or people who hold themselves forth as scientists, who say that scientifically that link can be made when it is actually almost incomprehensible for most of us. Who are the scientists in whom the Government are placing such faith for the scientific basis of animal sentience that they claim to exist? Where do they gather? Which respectable journals do that publish in? Who is this cadre of leading animal sentience scientists?
Of course, there are animal welfare scientists and veterinarians, and people like that, but this is very specialised, a very narrow and a relatively new field—only over the last 20 years. It has no leading lights at the moment; it is, I would suggest to your Lordships’ House, predominantly ideologically driven, and it is based in large measure on funding being supplied by what might be thought of as groups and foundations with a prior view.
So my question really to my noble friend, even as he trembles on the brink of his success—he is very close to getting his way and seeing this Bill through with practically no amendments—and before he commits the nation to this Bill and this version of animal sentience, is whether he should not think twice about the claims that he makes and the confidence that he rests in what is a very ropey branch of science. Should that not lead him to pull back and consider this amendment, which requires peer review of scientific reports from the committee? In fact, it requires peer review of all reports, and I realise now that that is a bit silly, because some of them will just be procedural—but we can work on the wording. On the scientific reports of the committee, could not he and I work together to get an appropriate amendment at Third Reading that would try to make sure that we rest at last on robust science and not on something ropey and partisan? If it is ropey and partisan, we will come deeply to regret it.

Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I shall just comment very briefly on what my noble friend has just said. I disagreed with him on one point, when he said that there were no leading lights in the science of sentience. I draw his attention to a wonderful book published by Oxford University Press just a few months ago by the great Cambridge psychologist Nick Humphrey. Nick says, after 60,000 words of argument, as he put it to me in an email:
“My conclusions are quite radical—and at odds with both academic and popular wisdom. I argue that the only animals that have evolved to be sentient are mammals and birds, and not all of these. We really don’t need to worry about lobsters or octopuses.”
He did not add, “or crocodiles”.
So I think that there is developing science on this, and my noble friend is quite right that it needs to be peer-reviewed and investigated. I think that we will find the goalposts move on what is sentient, and that it is not a given that everything with a backbone is sentient or, indeed, that some of the decapods and others are as sentient as we have heard in recent years.

Lord Herbert of South Downs: My Lords, I remind the House of my various interests in the Countryside Alliance, including chairing the organisation. I apologise for being unable to take part in this Report stage earlier, but I was isolating and was only just released less than two hours ago. However, I was watching the proceedings very carefully, and it seemed to me that there was an emerging pattern—a serial rejection of all the amendments proposed by my noble friends and others, whether on issues of retrospectivity, on the composition of the committee, or on the matter of the risk that this committee is going to present of more judicial review. I could only admire my noble friend’s élan in batting away each of these suggestions, which came from former Ministers, from a former Leader of the House and from a former leader of the party—and from a brace at least of Queen’s Counsel, as well as suggestions and advice from a former Master of the Rolls. They were all swatted away elegantly by my noble friend.
I simply wish to say that my noble friends are sentient beings, too, and I believe that we are being treated cruelly. There is a case for reference to an independent committee to make advice as to whether all these suggestions should have been taken more seriously. Perhaps, if Ministers dismiss the advice of the animal sentience committee with the same alacrity, we will have little to fear from its future proceedings.
However, the truth is that there is less of a risk to specific aspects of farming or other activities that we can identify now than, I judge, of gluing up government with a constant process of analysis and rejection, followed by review, of proposals made by the committee. Indeed, there is to be not just one committee but two and, as we heard earlier, they will refer matters to each other, in a description that reminded me very much of a passage from “Yes Minister”. Ministers sometimes, when they occupy two briefs, as I once did, are encouraged to write letters to themselves in their dual positions. Now we have two animal committees that will be encouraged to refer matters to each other. This is an overcorrection because of a promise made earlier.
The suggestion of my noble friend Lord Moylan that, at the very least, we should ensure that the advice that the committee gives is grounded in the soundest possible science and is peer reviewed seems eminently sensible. I also join his modest suggestion that this might be the exception and the one proposal that the Minister might entertain.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. Why do we have delegated committees? Why do parliamentary bodies contract out part of their function? The only answer, it seems to me, is that you need very specific accumulated scientific expertise—in the field of economics, or whatever—that you would not reasonably have from a legislative Chamber.
When I made the point on an earlier amendment that there is no such thing as a disinterested expert—we all have our prejudices and opinions and scientists are still human beings—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that I was Luddite or, worse, “Goveian” in my attack on all experts. But this is surely having it both ways. We cannot say, “We must have this outside committee but there is absolutely no reason for them to base their recommendations on reputable science”. If we are not prepared to require the experts to rule on the basis of where the expertise is, on what possible basis are we creating this committee at all?

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: I bring your Lordships back to the amendments, which are on peer review and publication, but I say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who entertained us wonderfully with his stories of crocodiles. Why does he think that the Government—his Government—would use “ropey advice”, as he put it, to make decisions? I find that a quite extraordinary claim, particularly given the recent report on cephalopods and decapod crustaceans, which is the basis of a debate we shall be coming to shortly, which was done by the London School of Economics. I certainly would not classify the LSE as “ropey”. So why does he think that there is evidence of “ropey” scientific evidence being used by the Government in this Bill?
There is a certain amount in this that is very similar to Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on publication. As I said on his amendment, it concerns me that, once we start asking for everything to be published, particularly in an academic journal following peer review, we are adding a lot of time and delay to the committee’s work. Policy scrutiny reports differ in purpose, content and form from academic journal articles. The scientific evidence requirement for publication could limit the committee’s work to areas where a body of research already exists. Such research will not be in place for every policy that would impact the welfare of animals as sentient beings. In fact, I see part of the committee’s value as its ability to examine questions that have not been considered before.
The Council on Animal Affairs—a precedent body in the Netherlands, similar to the ASC being set up here —has produced some useful reports for its Government,   considering new questions around policy and digitalisation in farming and biotechnology in the zoo sector. Both are areas where prior research material was very limited. The ASC should have a similar freedom to apply its core welfare question to policies where its considerations could add value, including areas not previously covered in detail by the scientific community. Again, it is important to stress that the role of the ASC is not to make detailed policy proposals but to draw attention to areas where the Government may wish to develop them.

Lord Benyon: My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. I do not want to detain the House, but I was very entertained by my noble friend Lord Moylan’s trips down the gradations of sentience that might exist across the animal kingdom. I was trying to work out whether he was a follower of Aristotle—who believed that animals lacked rational souls and therefore were outside the sphere of justice—or whether he was Descartian or Rousseauan in his view. I do not want to go into a philosophical—

Lord Moylan: It may help my noble friend—seeing as he was so kind as to ask the question, I am sure he will be interested in the answer—to know that I stand on every occasion with Aristotle on this, as on so many other matters. I just want that to be clear.

Lord Benyon: That is good to know. I am very grateful. However, I differ from him entirely if he thinks—which I do not think he really does—that the Government, of whom I am proud to be part, would engage with any form of ropey bunch of scientists. In fact we will come on to talk about, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the degree of scientific breadth that went into the 300 different pieces of work studied by the London School of Economics in its reports on decapods and cephalopods. It is an indication of the expertise that exists out there.
I think my noble friend Lord Hannan has the advantage on me in that he believes that legislators do not need experts. I may have misunderstood him, but as I gaze around this Chamber I see precious few scientists, with one notable exception. There may be more—of course, there is the noble Lord, Lord Trees.

Lord Robathan: Excuse me!

Lord Benyon: No, I do not include the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. Both Houses lack the kind of expert rigour that we need in decision-making. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his Amendments 23 and 35 concerning the academic rigour of the committee. We will ensure that the animal sentience committee is comprised of members with the right expertise. They will be best placed to decide what the committee’s priorities should be and, in doing so, they can consult others. I reassure my noble friend that the annual work plan of the committee will be made publicly available. This will ensure that its priorities and approach are fully transparent. As the draft terms of reference  for the committee show, we fully intend to appoint members through a rigorous procedure of fair and open competition.
Of course, peer-reviewed evidence from academic journals has a role in informing the committee’s work. However, I do not believe it is necessary for the committee’s reports themselves to be published in academic journals. It is critical that the committee should be able to advise in a timely way—this is the key point—on policies that are being developed. To require the committee’s recommendations to undergo the full academic peer-review process would cause considerable delays in enabling Parliament to hold government to account. This amendment would severely compromise its role. I hope with those few words I have reassured my noble friend, and he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Earl of Caithness: Before my noble friend sits down, although he says he does not want the committee’s work to be peer-reviewed, does he still abide by what he said in Hansard on 25 May when he was talking about pollinators? He said:
“It is right to use science as the absolute arbiter in this.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 891.]
Is science going to be the absolute arbiter for this committee?

Lord Benyon: I hope I can reassure my noble friend that science and good scientific evidence is at the heart of decision-making and that is why we need the right advice for Ministers—so, yes. However, his experience and mine will have been that one can get conflicting scientific advice, so one needs to choose scientific experts with care and make sure that they give clear, unbiased opinions to Ministers and that their information can make better policy. Therefore, scientific evidence will be at the heart of this and we will follow it in the selection of committee members.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Before my noble friend sits down, does he think that Mrs Carrie Johnson has the expertise and rigour to be on the animal sentience committee?

Lord Benyon: I will make sure that every single person who applies for the committee has the necessary expertise, whatever background they come from. We will be looking for a range of people, from those with agricultural experience, those with experience of animals at the end of life in the slaughter process, and veterinarians. I made a list earlier; I will not repeat it because there were some long words which I cannot remember, but they will undoubtedly be a factor in deciding who will be members of the committee.

Lord Moylan: My Lords, it is a great disappointment that my noble friend has not conceded the very sensible proposal I made. It was unsurprising, however. What did surprise me were the remarks from the Opposition Dispatch Box. A more thorough-going endorsement of government policy better presented it is rare to imagine coming across. The idea that the Government never take scientific advice that needs to  be checked or disputed and that they would never take dodgy scientific advice, now endorsed by the Labour Front Bench, is one I will cherish and store up for reference, no doubt, on some future occasion. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 23 withdrawn.
Amendments 24 to 26 not moved.

Amendment 27

Baroness Deech: Moved by Baroness Deech
27: Clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert—“(4A) Recommendations made by the Committee must respect legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment seeks to place a duty on the Committee to have regard to the balancing factors included in the Lisbon Treaty, Article 13 of Title II, to which the UK was a party before Brexit.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, I am very sorry that the Government have not appreciated the centrality of this amendment—the decent working of the whole Bill. I beg to move.
Ayes 25, Noes 74.

Amendment 27 disagreed.

Amendment 28

The Earl of Caithness (Con): Moved by The Earl of Caithness (Con)
28: Clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert—“(4A) Recommendations under subsection (3) must not be detrimental to—(a) nature conservation,(b) biosecurity,(c) crop protection, and(d) human health.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is to ensure that the Committee take into account the consequences of their recommendations for nature conservation, biosecurity, crop protection and human health and thus to help HMG meet its ambitions of the Environment Act 2021 and Agriculture Act 2020.

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 28 standing in my name. This is a similar amendment to the one I moved in Committee and it asks that any recommendation from the animal sentience committee is not detrimental to nature conservation, biosecurity, crop protection and human health.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench will  know very well, our major concern is the unintended consequences of his project and what these could lead to. My concern is that there is huge potential for causing damage to nature conservation. We have just completed discussions on the Environment Bill, and much of what that seeks to achieve could be undermined  by some of the decisions of the committee that are then translated into action by Ministers. It is the same for biosecurity, crop protection and human health. I refer to pests, in particular.
The reason that the committee could put undue influence on the Government is that Defra’s largest postbag in the last 15 to 20 years has been on animal welfare, and the Government regularly receive petitions on animal health and welfare issues. We even heard today that Her Majesty has received a petition signed by school children. It is also well known that public consultations consistently receive high response rates—for example, those on bovine TB and badger culling. It is for that reason—this intense emotional pressure—that I asked my noble friend the question about the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in New Zealand, and whether he would follow its recommendation. He has not yet replied to me. I think he will shortly—at least, I hope he will—in which case he will set a precedent. I have been waiting three weeks for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to reply to some of my questions, and I have been waiting 10 days for the Secretary of State to reply to my questions. So Defra is not very high in my good books for replying to questions.
It is important that the committee should understand the difference between societal ethical values and public opinion; the two are very different. Backing public opinion could lead one to unscientific and wrong recommendations. My noble friend the Minister mentioned scientific evidence. As he rightly says, there will be contradictory scientific evidence; I hope that when the committee gets scientific evidence, all the contradictory scientific evidence will be clearly reported and not ignored.
I turn to the issue of biodiversity. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in his place because there are important ways in which those who care for the countryside and look after it have to manage pest control. I want to ask my noble friend the Minister about this. He said in Committee on 20 July:
“To be specific on whether the Bill will interfere with pest control, the answer is no. Pest control is highly regulated. Rules ensure that the trapping and killing of vermin is humane, using permitted methods.”—[Official Report, 20/7/21; col. GC 30.]
My noble friend is right to a point: pest control is regulated—but it is not checked. If he wanted to buy some serious rat poison he would have to produce a licence, as he knows. However, you can buy the same rat poison online without any identification or licence; so, there is legislation, but it is not controlled.
With the committee able to act with the remit that it will have, there is potential for more of this to happen. I ask my noble friend to consider fox snares, which are a widely misunderstood device; a fox snare is to tether the animal, not to strangulate it. The fox snares now being used are of the highest international standard, but the animal sentience committee may choose to engage only with stakeholders and the public rather than consult those who actually know about these things. Will fox snares be an issue that the animal sentience committee can look at? What about Larsen traps? They are permitted under Section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act; they do not meet the   criteria, but they are allowed under general licence. That is a perfect example of where the animal sentience committee could cause all sorts of problems. It is hugely important that Larsen traps are effective during the breeding season to keep corvid numbers under control.
I turn briefly to rats, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hamilton earlier this afternoon. I just mentioned about being able to buy rat poison with a licence or online without a licence, but is it not highly hypocritical of us to treat rats, which will be classed as a sentient being, in a very different way to all other animals? Most people do not like rats; they turn a blind eye and do not understand that when you give a rat rat poison, it does not die on the spot but goes away and dies a slow, lingering death. We would not do this to any other animal. Will this be something that the animal sentience committee will be able to look at? If we are not able to poison rats, we will pose a huge difficulty with human health, as we have had in the past.
Another pest is the brown hare. It is a pest on arable land in the spring, but at other times of the year it is not a pest. But the hare is also a game species and it is also on the biodiversity action plan. My noble friend said that the animal sentience committee will be rigorous with its scientific analysis. However, Defra has not been rigorous in its scientific analysis, because it has included the hare in the action plan for a closed season, but there is no scientific evidence to justify that. If Defra does not use good science, as it is not using good science on issues of heather burning, then what confidence can we have that the animal sentience committee is going to use good science? Robust science is critical, and where there is not robust science, the animal sentience committee should be absolutely clear in stating this for us. I was not reassured by what my noble friend said in Committee, and I hope he will be able to reassure me later this evening.
I turn to Amendments 29 and 31, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. The noble Lord is, unfortunately, stuck in Scotland and unable to get down tonight, and he has asked me to say a few words. Amendment 29 again shows the noble Lord’s concern for animal welfare. It is hugely important, when one is culling deer, that it is done as cleanly and effectively as possible. There has been a movement, which I have taken part in, to ban shooting game with lead shot, but I do not think there is yet scientific evidence that deer should not continue to be shot with a lead bullet—in fact, quite the reverse. Any non-lead bullet has been proven to be not as effective at killing deer and therefore potentially causes the animal more suffering.
Amendment 31 is about dog training collars. Again, this is an area that Defra wants to legislate on, but the scientific evidence does not stand up to scrutiny to support its position. A training collar is a very useful device for those who live in the country and for some who live in the town, where dogs are liable to run out into the road and not only do damage to themselves but potentially cause an accident. The amount of energy and shock that a dog might get—once it has  gone through the beep and the vibration to come to the shock—is a very small shock that probably happens once in its lifetime, after which it knows full well that, when the beep happens, it has to change whatever it is doing and behave more rationally.
When we talk about electric shocks, we need to talk about electric fences, which are hugely important for protecting nesting birds from badger and fox predation. If any farmer or landowner had gone to the lengths that the RSPB has done in publishing a manual about electric fences, that farmer would have had his name splashed over every tabloid and been hounded out of his job. However, the RSPB produces a manual that says you should have electric fences. Not only must you have them, but for badgers you must cover the electric fence in cotton wool, soaked in honey to attract them. For foxes, you want to get the best fat you can from your roast beef and smear it on the electric fence at fox head height, which is a wonderful way to give the fox a very nasty shock.
Those electric fences are 2,000 times more powerful than any shock that a dog might have got from an electric collar. Has my noble friend been in contact with the RSPB? I understand that it has now withdrawn its manual, but I find it quite amusing that none of the tabloids has said anything about it recommending the use of electric fences and their potential hurt and damage to animals. With hedgehogs, it goes so far as to say the shock will kill them because they tend to roll up rather than run away, so they continue to get electrocuted. With the amount of power it recommends you put through an electric fence, you will do a huge amount of damage to wildlife. This is a charity really abusing its position.
There is a hugely serious point to having electric fences. The only way the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust farm in Scotland has been able to get any hatch of lapwing this year was by putting electric fences around the nests to keep the batch predation as small as possible. Even so, a great number of young chicks were lost to predators.
I hope my noble friend will do a lot more this evening to reassure me that pests and pest control will not be affected by this Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, Amendment 45 in my name is in this group. I have listened to crocodiles and in the next group we will get crabs and lobsters, so I will introduce the fish. If the Minister thinks it right to put crabs and lobsters in the Bill, he might consider my amendment.
There is a very significant body of scientific evidence that fish feel pain and are sentient animals. Individuals are capable of experiencing pain and feeling emotions such as fear. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, a fish may be a protected animal if it is under the control of man, but the Explanatory Notes on Section 59 read as follows:
“This section provides that anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing is not covered by this Act … The term ‘fishing’ should be understood as applying to ordinary activities of fishermen and anglers, and also the ordinary activities of those who own and run stocked ponds in allowing fishing activities to take place on their ponds.”
My amendment proposes that precisely the same provision be placed in this Act as was put in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It would give reassurance to a great many people who enjoy fishing.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I echo the point of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about biosecurity. The implications of not taking care of biosecurity, which is mentioned in his amendment—I do not necessarily agree with all of the amendment—are fundamental; it is an ongoing threat to biodiversity and the ecological strength of this nation. I re-echo that point on biosecurity in terms of this Bill. As we know, at the moment we have few protections for biosecurity in our current arrangements, but, hopefully, that will change in the new year when there are greater controls on imports to this country. I just wanted to re-emphasise that point in the noble Earl’s amendment.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for making that point, which is incredibly important, particularly to me, as someone who lives in Cumbria, where we have so many problems with tree diseases and are losing so many trees. It is pitiful watching some of the woods being taken down around places such as Ennerdale and Loweswater.
Coming back to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, he is right that we do need to look out for any unintended consequences of legislation. There are concerns that there may be an adverse impact on the environment. It is important that the Minister is able to reassure noble Lords that there will not be these outcomes from the Bill being enacted. This brings me back to the points we made earlier about how critical it is that the animal sentience committee has the right members who are highly qualified to advise the Secretary of State on these matters when any proposals are put forward.
Looking at Amendment 29, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I say that it is not necessarily unfortunate to be stuck in Scotland at the moment; I might like to be joining him there. There was a debate on the Environment Bill about lead shot, and I will be interested to look at government progress on this.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, introduced Amendment 31 on electric dog training collars. These are opposed by the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, the Animal Behaviour and Training Council and the British Veterinary Association. I am aware that the Government have previously announced plans to look at banning shock collars on dogs, and on this side of the House we would support the Government if they wanted to go down that route.
The final amendment, Amendment 45, was introduced by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. I thank her for it and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to her concerns.

Lord Benyon: I am grateful to noble Lords for the opportunity to discuss and explain the interaction of the Bill, and the animal sentience committee, with important policy matters related to animal welfare.
Turning to Amendment 28, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I can only apologise to him that I do not have a response at present to his point on New Zealand. I want to make sure I get it right, because I do not want to be criticised on the Floor of the House for replying to him late or giving him the wrong answer to a question—but I will reply to him.
This amendment would require the animal sentience committee to ensure that its recommendations would not have a detrimental impact on certain other matters of public interest and great importance. I agree with my noble friend that these vital matters of public interest should be properly considered in all relevant government decisions. But the animal sentience committee is not a decision-making body, and the committee will not have the kind of expertise to evaluate these kinds of impacts. I do not think it would be fruitful to impose this requirement on the committee itself.
Ministers should consider the full range of relevant factors and arrive at a decision as to the appropriate balance between them, for which they are accountable to Parliament. I fear that this amendment would mean asking a committee, which is not accountable to Parliament in the same manner, to prejudge this balance.
We should also be careful to task the right experts with particular scrutiny and advisory functions. The right people to comment on a policy’s effect on human health, for example, are doctors and medical scientists, rather than animal welfare experts. I would not ask doctors to provide an expert opinion on animal welfare issues. Ultimately, we must allow specialist expert committees to focus on their own particular remit. For these reasons, I believe there are better means to ensure that the important matters my noble friend raises are given fair consideration in policy decision-making.
My noble friend cited the example of a Larsen trap; let us follow that through. Suppose the animal sentience committee was to look at the animal welfare effect of an animal being trapped, albeit for a relatively short period, in a live cage trap such as a Larsen trap. Undoubtedly, that is an experience that the bird would not enjoy, but the Minister, on making policy, might reflect that capturing that bird in one of the most effective and humane ways possible means that a vast range of other wildlife and biodiversity can survive. So, while the Minister will see the report, they will be able to take a wider view rather than looking just at the particulars of that issue.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, are right to mention biosecurity. I live and breathe this, and there are diseases here, and coming our way, of trees and of animals that keep me awake at night. We want to avoid them coming here, and Defra and my team are absolutely committed to that. He is right that that is an area where a Minister will take a wider view. If it is in the interests of biosecurity or biodiversity to take a different view from the committee, he or she will be absolutely entitled to do that, and that will not be judicially reviewable as a result.
I turn to Amendment 29, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, but was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Caithness. This amendment seeks to impose a requirement on the committee to produce a report on whether the welfare of deer is served by the use of lead or non-lead ammunition in hunting. It is important that the committee retains the ability and discretion to decide how best it can add value and discharge its role effectively. In our view, this calls for the committee to prioritise which policy decisions it decides to scrutinise. As we have made clear, we would expect the committee to be transparent about its prioritisation, and the expertise of the committee’s members will mean that the committee will be well placed to understand how they can fulfil their scrutiny role to meet the aims of the Bill. For this reason, I would not wish to impose a requirement on the committee to produce a particular report on a specific issue.
Additionally, the committee is there to report on how well the policy decision under consideration took account of the welfare needs of animals affected, rather than commenting on what the policy should  be in light of all relevant matters. The noble Lord’s amendment would require the committee to venture into the business of the latter.
Turning to Amendment 31, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, Ministers should consider carefully how best to gather expert evidence and stakeholder views when making policy decisions. Indeed, the animal sentience committee will be established in order to help furnish accountability for properly considering the effects of policy decisions on animal welfare. As I have said before, the committee itself will not make decisions or recommendations about the substance of policy decisions themselves. The committee may only scrutinise and advise on how well individual policy decisions took account of the welfare needs of sentient animals. It will remain for Ministers to make policy decisions, having regard to all matters of public interest. Given that distinction, we do not consider it appropriate to require the committee to embark on consultation before issuing reports relating to particular policy decisions.
We believe that the committee should retain the ability and discretion to decide how best it can add value and discharge its role effectively. In our view, this calls for a prioritised approach by the committee when deciding which policy decisions to scrutinise. As we have made clear, we would expect the committee to be transparent about its prioritisation, and the expertise of the committee’s members will mean that the committee will be well placed to understand how they can fulfil their scrutiny role to meet the aims of the Bill.
Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, seeks to add to the Bill an exception for fishing. I can happily declare an interest as an avid angler. This is another good example of how the Bill might work. If the animal sentience committee were to take the decision to write a report on whether fishing caused pain to the animal, the Minister could then consider other, wider factors—for example, that it is the largest participation sport in the country, it has a significant effect on the rural economy and there is  huge value in the work that fishing interests and riparian owners do for biodiversity in river environments. That is an example of where the balance of views will be taken into account.
The Bill recognises that animals with a backbone, including fish as well as decapods and cephalopods, are sentient. Recognising these animals as sentient in the Bill means that the animal sentience committee can consider how well individual central government policies have paid regard to the welfare of these creatures and can publish reports on this. Ministers will then be required to respond to Parliament on such reports published by the committee. That applies to all policy areas and has no exemptions.
As we have said, the Bill is all about providing assurance that central government policy-making is well grounded. The Bill does not change existing law and is not capable of imposing any new restrictions on individuals or businesses. More specifically, it does not change any current legal requirements on the fishing industry. I really hope, even at this late hour, that fishing interests may be watching or listening, or perhaps they will read the reports tomorrow, because I do not want to read any more headline articles saying that this legislation is about banning activities that, frankly, I feel passionate about protecting. It is about making sure that Ministers have better access to information on the policies they make, and that they are able to make it on the basis of wider considerations if they have to.
Defra will continue to work with stakeholders, including the seafood industry and any other fishing interests, whether inland or marine, to make improvements to animal welfare. I hope that I have been able to offer greater clarity and reassurance about the implications of the Bill and that my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for coming in on biodiversity—I am glad he was in his place for this amendment—and to the Minister, who has gone further than he did in Committee.
As we know, the animal sentience committee has to consider whether an animal has been deprived of one or more of its five welfare needs as set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. One of those is the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury or disease. That opens up a huge ambit for the committee. At the moment, we are extremely fortunate in having a Minister in Defra who understands the countryside, how it works and the need for balance. What many of us are concerned about, given the emotion and public opinion that some who are less concerned about that balance are able to generate, is that future Ministers who are not so attuned to the countryside and what happens there—I can think of quite a number in the past who were not—will not be as strong and forthcoming as my noble friend Lord Benyon. That is where we are concerned, and it is why we are trying to alter the Bill in some respects.
I have clearly failed to persuade my noble friend. He has the brief that I so often had, which at the top right-hand corner says “Resist”. His resistance is going to overcome my willingness to change, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 28 withdrawn.
Amendments 29 to 33 not moved.

  
Clause 3: Response to reports
  

Amendments 34 and 35 not moved.

Amendment 36

Lord Benyon: Moved by Lord Benyon
36: Clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert—“(3) The following do not count towards the three months referred to in subsection (2)—(a) any day in a period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, and(b) any day in a period of four or more days during which both Houses of Parliament are adjourned.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment has the effect that periods when Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for 4 or more days do not count towards the period in which the Minister is required to respond to a report by the Committee.
Amendment 36 agreed.
Amendments 37 and 38 not moved.

  
Clause 5: Interpretation

Amendment 39

Lord Benyon: Moved by Lord Benyon
39: Clause 5, page 2, line 32, at end insert—“(b) any cephalopod mollusc, and(c) any decapod crustacean.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment adds cephalopod molluscs (for example, octopus and squid) and decapod crustaceans (for example, crab and lobster) to the definition of “animal” for the purposes of the Bill.

Lord Benyon: I am grateful to your Lordships for your forbearance, and for your views and insights on this important piece of legislation. I will also speak to the consequential Amendment 43.
As I have said during previous debates on the Bill, the Government’s approach to recognising the sentience of animals will be guided by the scientific evidence. My department commissioned an independent review from the London School of Economics and Political Science of the evidence surrounding the sentience of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans for that very purpose. As promised, I made the findings of that review available to your Lordships for consideration ahead of today’s debate.
Sentience is broadly understood to be the capacity to feel pain. Our Animal Welfare Committee advised in 2018:
“Sentience is the capacity to experience pain, distress and harm.”
The review considered the findings of around 300 scientific studies, using a set of criteria based on brain structure, nervous system complexity and testing for adaptive behaviour to assess whether these classes of invertebrate are sentient. The report itself was subject to peer review.
The Government have given careful consideration to the contents of the final report. We accept that there is strong evidence of the sentience of these invertebrates. It is only right, therefore, that they are included in the provisions of the Bill. That means that the animal sentience committee, once established, may produce reports under Section 2 of the Bill in relation to the welfare of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans.
However, I want to be clear that this amendment does not alter existing legislation or policy. I have heard, for example, the concerns put to me by representatives of the fishing sector, and I can assure this House that nothing in this amendment, or indeed in the Bill, changes the rules governing the activities of individuals or businesses.
Naturally, in due course, the Government may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to amend the scope of other animal welfare legislation to include cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. While that is not the question we are discussing today, I take the opportunity to assure your Lordships that any changes to existing laws would be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and we would consider carefully how we would engage industry in their development.
Today, we propose simply to recognise the sentience of these invertebrates in line with the scientific evidence. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and my noble friends Lady Fookes and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for their previous amendments on this subject. I hope that they, and the rest of the House, will support this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Moylan: My Lords, it is with some regret that I note that my noble friend at the Dispatch Box did not thank me for my previous amendment on this subject. I accepted as far back as Committee that it was likely that cephalopods and decapod crustaceans would be added to the list of sentient beings covered by the Bill, although I did not expect it to be done in the Bill but through the secondary legislation which it contemplates.
I introduced an amendment in Committee that said, beyond vertebrates, the Government can only add, to the list of sentient beings, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans and no more. This was countered, so to speak, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, who put down an amendment that actually added those two classes of creature to the face of the Bill. Neither amendment, of course, proceeded at Committee stage. I find it rather sad and curious that, of those two amendments, my noble friend at the  Dispatch Box selected that promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and has rather ignored mine.
However, I still believe that it is appropriate that the Bill should be amended to place some constraints on the ability of the Secretary of State to add to the list without returning to this House for primary legislation. I am not entirely alone in that regard, because I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, in that particular amendment. Of course, I have to achieve it now through a different set of drafting —a different mechanism. The mechanism is no longer to limit the expansion to those two classes, because they have effectively been added already, but to take out from page 2, line 33, those subsections that give the Secretary of State the power to proceed in extending the list. That is the purpose of Amendment 42.
There is nothing more to be said, because my noble friend is not being very kind this evening to that particular species of animal that exists on his Back Benches and is practising a certain form of cruelty in tandem with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and indeed the others whom he mentioned, the other noble Baronesses, who are not entirely in their place at the moment: the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. Together, the Minister and noble Baronesses are going to say no to this modest suggestion. So, I will leave it there without argument, simply pellucid in its compelling character, and allow my noble friend to reject it when he rises to speak.

Lord Trees: My Lords, I have been up, and indeed in, many African rivers, but not the Zambezi, like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. So, I will try to be as brief as he has been, but I want to make two comments: one about Amendment 39 and one about Amendment 42.
The inclusion of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods within the remit of this Bill is warranted, evidence based and consistent with current legislation with regard to cephalopods, in that they are protected under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, so I support this amendment. However, currently in the Bill, it appears that larval forms of decapod crustacea would also be included. These can be microscopic; they are the fauna of plankton, and then they grow  up into shrimps and prawns and so on. I ask the Minister: at what point does a larval decapod crustacean become sentient? A briefing from the Marine Biological Association and the National Oceanography Centre expresses concerns particularly that, if larval forms of crustacea are included, it might compromise their environmental monitoring and research functions. I ask the Minister if consideration has been given to an amendment along the lines of Amendment 41, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland, that excludes embryonic forms.
Amendment 42, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, myself, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, removes the possibility,  currently in the Bill, for the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the list of animals covered in the Bill. This would still be possible but would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny through primary legislation. This would recognise that, as scientific research continues, evidence may accrue from which it might be argued that other invertebrates may have some degree of sentience. Crustacea are but one group within a vast taxon of arthropods that includes many thousands of species including the insects.
In the excellent LSE report that reported on the sentience in decapod crustaceans and cephalopods, there is a matrix of criteria—eight in that report—in which evidence of varying strengths may be aggregated in varying levels of confidence to arrive at an overall judgment whether a particular group may be considered sentient. There is not a clear demarcation between sentient and non-sentient.
The inclusion of further groups of invertebrates as sentient merits very thorough and balanced political, economic and societal—as well as scientific—consideration, and should ultimately be a parliamentary decision in primary legislation.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, my noble friend may not like it but I will support him—I hope he appreciates that—because he said something very sensible about Larsen traps. On a small Midlands farm I catch between 40 and 82 magpies—that is the most I have ever caught—a year. Visitors congratulate me on the huge clouds of linnets, yellowhammers and whatever that we have on the farm, so I was delighted to hear what he said about Larsen traps.
In relation to government Amendment 39, I have always thought that putting a lobster into boiling water must be cruel. People say, “Oh no, they don’t feel, they’ve got no brain”. I have no idea whether they have a brain or not, but it must be cruel, and the Government are making a very good move in seeking to protect such things. While I support the amendment, however, I am not sure that it should be in the Bill—in primary legislation. I would have thought that it could have done by SI; I am not sure that this is necessarily the right way to go about it. I will, however, on this occasion support the Government without any compromise.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I am a bit perplexed by all this. The Government have decided to include lobsters and octopi—I prefer those terms because I understand them—but to exclude fish and, if they do not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the minute creatures that they produce. It seems to me that we are on a slippery slope here: the sentience committee could come to the conclusion one day that fish have sentience and feel harm, and then we would ban them. Once you start down this road, there is no limit to where you can go in describing creatures as sentient. That troubles me enormously, and is why I am less than enthusiastic about my noble friend’s amendment.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, with this amendment we move on to Clause 5. It rather intrigues me, because it makes an exception of homo sapiens, and I wanted  to ask the Minister whether that means that the Government see us as a non-sentient species. Perhaps he will answer that: if the answer is yes, I would probably agree, on track record. However, I will not detain the House. As my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville would do, I want to thank the Government for this amendment and Amendment 43, which we very much support. I understand and greatly respect what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, but I am also aware that the recent scientific evidence on the mental facilities of species such as the octopus—how it is intelligent in a very different way from that in which mammals are intelligent—should be taken very seriously and included in the Bill.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: Noble Lords will not be surprised that I am absolutely delighted that the Government have tabled Amendment 39, which, as we have heard, has picked up the amendment I tabled in Committee and expands the definition of animals in the Bill to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopods.
It has also been good to hear support from some noble Lords, although I am sorry that it seems to have made the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, so sad. As the Minister said in his introduction, this amendment follows the London School of Economics and Political Science’s report, which concluded that there is strong scientific evidence that decapod crustaceans are sentient and can experience pain. I will not go into the detail of the report because the Minister has done that admirably, but I draw attention to the overarching central recommendation that all cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans should be regarded as sentient animals for the purposes of UK animal welfare law; they should be counted as animals for the purposes of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and should be included in the scope of any future legislation relating to animal sentience. To be honest, that could not be clearer. The LSE is a well-respected organisation.
The report also provides some helpful recommend-ations for improving best practice and welfare and for regulating existing commercial practices that are of reasonable and widespread animal welfare concern for decapod crustaceans. In addition, it is consistent with the approach other countries have taken, for example, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, some Australian states and territories and some German and Italian cities. Importantly, the report also includes recommendations about how industry can be supported through any necessary changes. Will the Minister confirm that marine industries and the food sector will have advice and help to manage any impact that a change in legislation would bring?
I want to say once again a big thank you to the Minister and the Government for taking this forward and proposing its inclusion in the Bill. I am sure he is very aware that he has the strong support of these Benches.

Lord Benyon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. I think it might be helpful to the House if I say how this came about, as it answers the points about how we got to the stage of  including decapods and cephalopods in the Bill. It is a matter of serendipity. For many years people have been pushing for work to be done, and it was done by the LSE. It just so happened that that report came into the Government’s hands over the summer while we were in the process of going through the Committee stage, and it seemed an obvious moment to take this forward when the findings of that report were so clear.
To cheer up my noble friend Lord Hamilton a bit at this late hour, I cannot think of any other species that are likely to go through this process. If there are any, I suggest that it will probably be at least a decade before someone is standing here recommending that we take that forward. It may be less; this is a fast-moving area of science, but it has taken many years—I do not know how many precisely—for decapods and cephalopods to be recognised in this way. I hope that is reassuring.
The noble Baroness asked a question about the food industry and making sure that, if the committee were to make recommendations about how one treats these organisms as part of food processing or cooking and the law is then changed because Ministers accepted that advice, there would have to be a huge amount of work with the food industry to make sure that it was prepared for it. However, this amendment does not change anything. It does not change the law; it just allows it to be within the remit of the committee to give advice to Ministers who will then take other factors into account, regarding, for example, the marine environment, fish, the economic benefits of the fishing industry to coastal communities or the importance that the Government put on fish being part of the nation’s balanced diet. These are the sort of wider factors that Governments will take into consideration.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Moylan feels put upon. I thought that I was the victim here, but clearly that is not the case. I will try to be kind to him when I come to his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 41, and here my remarks relate to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill recognises that live animals with a backbone—vertebrates—are sentient. A government amendment has been tabled to also recognise decapod crustaceans and cephalopod molluscs as sentient, as I have said. It is our intention and expectation that the committee will concern itself with consideration of the welfare of live animals. In practice, it would be difficult for the committee and government departments to identify the way in which a policy under consideration affects the welfare needs of a foetus or an embryo, as opposed to those of the mother animal. It is unlikely, therefore, that the committee would find itself considering a policy beyond its remit. The central recommendation in the report is that these cephalopods and decapods will be regarded as sentient animals, but we carefully considered the recommendations in the review. The evidence of sentient decapods and cephalopods is clear: we are committed to being led by science when it comes to sentience, and that is why we amended the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, as I mentioned, the Government are led by the science when it comes to sentience. We have considered the review’s findings carefully before  amending the Bill to recognise these invertebrates as sentient. I can confirm that, at the present time, there is no intention to treat any other invertebrates, beyond decapods and cephalopods, as sentient animals. The scientific evidence that led to the Government commissioning the LSE review has been many years in the making. I can assure the House that this will continue to be the case for future extension, using the delegated powers in Clause 5.

Lord Moylan: I note what my noble friend says about there being no plans—and I fully accept that that is so, as he has assured the House—but if there are no plans, why do the Government wish to take the powers to continue to pursue them? Would it not be better if the Minister would just accept that primary legislation will be required as and when the science demands it?

Lord Benyon: I hope I can reassure my noble friend by saying that if the Secretary of State were to use his or her powers to recommend another species or group of species to be included, that would be the subject of parliamentary oversight. It would be an affirmative resolution requiring debate in both Houses and would be subject to other areas of parliamentary scrutiny, such as Select Committees and other means by which noble Lords and people in the other place would seek to hold that decision to account. I hope that we would not wish to risk this Bill becoming out of date by removing the ability to update its scope should the scientific evidence develop.
While we are not aware of any instances on the horizon, we cannot discount the possibility that new evidence will emerge in the future that demonstrates the sentience of some additional category of invertebrate. Decapods and cephalopods were the invertebrates most likely to qualify for being regarded as sentient animals. The likelihood that another category of invertebrate might one day be shown to be sentient is small, but it is not zero. That is why we wish to leave an option to update the definition if needed. Such a power must be subject to appropriate checks and balances, of course, and I will address this point shortly.
In the meantime, I take this opportunity to clarify that the Bill is all about government policy decision-making and how well particular decisions take account of the welfare needs of animals. The Bill and our amendments do not change existing law or impose new restrictions on individuals or businesses. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the time has come to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopods in the Bill and will therefore support the government amendment. I also hope that the points I have set out reassure noble Lords and that they will be content not to press their amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment 39 agreed.
Amendments 40 to 42 not moved.

Amendment 43

Lord Benyon: Moved by Lord Benyon
43: Clause 5, page 2, line 35, at end insert “, where they are not already within that meaning”   Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on Lord Benyon’s first amendment to Clause 5.
Amendment 43 agreed.
Amendments 44 and 45 not moved.

Amendment 46

Lord Robathan: Moved by Lord Robathan
46: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—“ExpiryThis Act expires at the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”

Lord Robathan: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, who is unavoidably detained somewhere in the country—I am not quite sure where—I beg to move this amendment. I am sorry that the Minister feels put upon, because I think he is doing a very good job defending what some people have described as indefensible, and well done him.
This is a very simple sunset clause. It is fair to say beyond peradventure that some of the arguments raised in the past six or seven hours show that there is dispute over whether the Bill is a sensible idea. Therefore, surely, we should have a sunset clause so that, after five years, we can look back and say, “Actually, it’s not working very well, let’s scrap it”—or improve it, or whatever it might be. That is all a sunset clause does, and that is why I move it.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: I support my noble friend Lord Robathan. In anybody’s language, this is an extremely controversial Bill—that has come from a number of extremely distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House. The most appalling collateral damage could be caused by the Bill which no one has anticipated. That is the problem. When you have such Bills with a mind of their own and committees that can roar off doing all sorts of things and are completely independent, it is only later that you realise that it was a very great mistake in the beginning. In all modesty, I think the Minister should seriously consider this sunset clause so that we can reconsider whether the Act, as the Bill will no doubt become, has been a good idea, whether it has achieved what it set out to do, or whether it has caused so much damage that it needs to be radically revised. A sunset clause of five years gives us a wonderful opportunity to think again, and I sincerely hope  that the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, as we have heard, this amendment sets a sunset clause on the Bill. Sunset clauses are quite rare and are usually associated with emergency legislation to deal with a time-specific problem. Recently, we have seen sunset clauses around the Coronavirus Act and previously, in the 2000s, in anti-terror legislation. This Bill is not a piece of emergency legislation passed to deal with something that is time specific. It is establishing the  animal sentience committee for the long term, so we on these Benches do not believe that a sunset clause is appropriate or necessary.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: I thank my noble friend Lord Robathan for introducing Amendment 46 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which would insert a clause that would repeal the Bill after five years. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for pointing out that sunset clauses are needed more for emergency legislation.
The Government have laid the Bill before Parliament because there is an ongoing benefit from a targeted mechanism that provides greater transparency for the consideration of animal welfare in central government policy decisions. However, we know that this must be done in a timely and proportionate way. Animal welfare considerations will not cease to be relevant in five years’ time, so it is hard to understand why the committee’s work should be brought to an abrupt halt at that point. It is the Government’s considered view that it would be plainly wrong for the Bill to expire after five years, as the animal sentience committee will have plenty to contribute beyond that time.
That is not to say, of course, that there will not be a review of processes to ensure that the Bill and the committee continue to fulfil their objectives well. As indicated in the committee’s draft terms of reference, we plan to ensure that it is subject to annual performance reviews. Defra will ultimately be accountable for the committee’s ongoing effectiveness and good governance. In addition, the Bill will be subject to the standard post-legislative scrutiny process, including a review of its effectiveness. That will take place within five years of Royal Assent. I hope that that reassures noble Lords and that my noble friend will be content to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Before my noble friend sits down, does she not feel that a sunset clause might in fact be to the great benefit of the Government, because they would not need to have the dramatic act of wrapping up the committee and the Act; it would merely come to its own conclusion? If, on the other hand—unlikely, in my opinion, but not impossible—the committee was doing extremely well, legislation could be introduced to continue it. It is not difficult to extend the life of an Act; it is much more difficult to abolish an Act altogether. If it lapsed automatically, it might be to the advantage of the Government in the future, rather than their disadvantage.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: I do not agree with my noble friend, because the committee’s work will be ongoing, and it will also respond to changes in scientific research that may come out in the course of its many years of work. To introduce a hard stop—a hard deadline—to its work would be both unnecessary and impractical.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, if I might say, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Hamilton, because it is not a question of ending the work of the  committee, but of saying, “Is the committee doing well after five years, and do we just continue it?”, which is very easily done. I have some experience of this in the past. However, I shall not force this to a Division, my noble friend will be pleased to know. Both my noble friends on the Front Bench will be particularly pleased to know that there is only one more clause to go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 46 withdrawn.

  
Clause 6: Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment 47

The Earl of Caithness: Moved by The Earl of Caithness
47: Clause 6, page 3, line 5, at end insert—“(3A) The Secretary of State must set up an independent committee of experts to report on the possible consequences of this Act.(3B) The Secretary of State must publish a response to the report by the independent committee.(3C) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements to move a motion for debate on the report of the independent committee and the Government’s response to it in each House of Parliament.(3D) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made until the motion in subsection (3C) has been debated in each House of Parliament.”

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 47. This is the last amendment  to be debated and I call it the lifebelt amendment. Since 4 pm—with a couple of breaks in between, but nearly seven hours ago—the Government have heard of all the things that are possibly wrong with this Bill. There are problems with the terms of reference; problems with the setting up of the committee; and the abdication of power by the Government to the committee. My noble friend on the Front Bench has heard expert opinions from both the legal and the veterinary side about the difficulties that this Bill could pose. The zoologists are equally concerned that the terminology in the Bill is so wishy-washy that it will be very hard for some decisions to be made accurately.
I drafted this lifebelt amendment, which proposes to give the Government time for considered thought about the Bill. Yes, my noble friend has got his Bill; he has fulfilled his instructions from on high and defeated every amendment. But having got his Bill, would this not be a sensible time to set up a committee to look at the unintended consequences, of which so many have been raised, before the Bill is enacted? This would give the Government a chance to have a look again if they were persuaded, on the evidence of the committee, that the Bill ought to be redrafted in a different way. I totally applaud the sentiment behind the Bill. We want it, but we also want one that is right, so I offer my noble friend a lifebelt at the last moment. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, this seems quite novel as an amendment—to try, once a Bill has gone through Parliament and become an Act, to judge it  afterwards. It is a novelty that I find perhaps rather difficult. I share the noble Earl’s thoughts about some of the issues around the Bill, but this is probably overly bureaucratic and, if we believe in Parliament, probably not the best way to move forward on this occasion—despite the great respect I have for him.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, I agree; I too hold the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in the greatest respect and the highest regard. Of course, he is absolutely right to say that any Government should consider seriously unintended consequences when considering any new legislation but, along with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I agree that this proposal is overly bureaucratic. Do we really need another committee? We seem to have an awful lot of them already. Expert advice will be readily available to the ASC, as we have heard, as well as to the Secretary of State.
I am very pleased that we have reached the end of Report and I congratulate the Minister on his resilience.

Lord Benyon: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, and I congratulate her on hers, too—and I thank her for her help in making this Bill better, although we have more to do. I join in the praise of my noble friend Lord Caithness. In my short time in this House he has proved himself to be a redoubtable holder of the Executive to account, if that is not a tautology.
He calls this the “lifebelt amendment” but I call it the “committee on the committee amendment”. I thank him, but it would require the establishment of a committee to assess the impacts of the Bill after it had received Royal Assent but before its provisions came into force. We believe that it is for Parliament to satisfy itself about the impacts of the proposed legislation before it approves it, and not to pass legislation on the proviso that it goes through further approval before coming into force.
The Bill has been subject to exacting scrutiny in this House. It has been scrutinised by the EFRA Select Committee, and there has been no absence of scrutiny of the Bill and its implications. My officials and I remain ready to answer any questions that noble Lords may have about the Bill. Parliament remains free to seek the views of outside experts on any aspect of the Bill. I have been clear throughout its passage what the implications of the Bill are; it does not change existing law or impose new restrictions on individuals, businesses or any organisation outside the UK Government. It will establish the committee, on the purpose, structure and membership of which I have spoken today at length. I give absolute assurance that Ministers will continue to have full discretion and responsibility as to the appropriate balance between animal welfare and other matters of public interest.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister not only for his reply but for the backbone that he has shown throughout the proceedings today. He has done a marvellous job at resisting, and I hope that the English batsmen learn from him before they take on Australia in the Ashes. But the bowling was all from one end today; Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition were mostly absent, although the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made a superb job of playing vice-Minister today. I hope that she gets her normal verve back and becomes a proper opposition Minister for the next Bill.
I really am grateful to the Minister. I believe that he listened, but I do not believe that his brief gave him any room for manoeuvre. He has done an excellent job  in fulfilling his brief and saying “resist” to every amendment and getting the Bill through. I have great pleasure in withdrawing my amendment.
Amendment 47 withdrawn.
Amendment 48 not moved.

Armed Forces Bill
 - Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with reasons and amendments.
House adjourned at 11.03 pm.